r  . 


THE  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •   BOSTON  •   CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON  •    BOMBAY  •   CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD, 

TORONTO 


THE  GOVERNMENTS  OF 
EUROPE 


BY 

FREDERIC  AUSTIN  OGG,  PH.  D. 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR  OF  HISTORY  IN  SIMMONS  COLLEGE 

AUTHOR  OF  "  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  IN    CONTEMPORARY 

EUROPE  " 


-Dforo  fork 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1916 

All  rights  reserved 


JF 

Of 


COPYRIGHT,  1913, 

BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  February.  1913, 

Reprinted  July,  December,  1913;  June,  1914;  August,  1915;  July,  1916. 


^        "^    2-7 


942353 


PREFACE 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  observation  that  during  the  opening  years 
of  the  twentieth  century  there  has  been,  in  many  portions  of  the 
civilized  world,  a  substantial  quickening  of  interest  in  the  principles 
and  problems  of  human  government.  The  United  States  is  happily 
among  those  countries  in  which  the  phenomenon  can  be  observed,  and 
we  have  witnessed  in  recent  times  not  only  the  organization  of  societies 
and  the  establishment  of  journals  designed  to  foster  research  within 
the  field,  but  also  a  notable  multiplication  and  strengthening  of 
courses  in  political  science  open  to  students  in  our  colleges  and  uni- 
versities, as  well  as  the  development  of  clubs,  forums,  extension  courses, 
and  other  facilities  for  the  increasing  of  political  information  and  the 
stimulation  of  political  thinking  on  the  part  of  the  people  at  large.  It 
is  the  object  of  this  book  to  promote  the  intelligent  study  of  govern- 
ment by  supplying  working  descriptions  of  the  governmental  systems 
of  the  various  countries  of  western  and  central  Europe  as  they  have 
taken  form  and  as  they  operate  at  the  present  day.  Conceived  and 
prepared  primarily  as  a  text  for  use  in  college  courses,  it  is  hoped 
none  the  less  that  the  volume  may  prove  of  service  to  persons  every- 
where whose  interest  in  the  subject  leads  them  to  seek  the  sort  of  in- 
formation which  is  here  presented. 

The  content  of  the  book  has  been  determined,  in  the  main,  by  three 
considerations.  In  the  first  place,  it  has  been  deemed  desirable  to 
afford  a  wide  opportunity  for  the  comparative  study  of  political  in- 
stitutions, especially  by  reason  of  the  familiar  fact  that  the  govern- 
mental system  of  a  minor  country  may,  and  frequently  does,  exhibit 
elements  of  novelty  and  of  importance  not  inferior  to  those  to  be  ob- 
served in  the  political  organization  of  a  greater  state.  Hence  there  are 
included  descriptions  of  the  governments  of  the  minor  as  well  as  of 
the  major  nations  of  western  and  central  Europe;  and  the  original 
purpose  to  attempt  some  treatment  of  the  governments  of  the  eastern 
nations  has  been  abandoned,  somewhat  reluctantly,  only  because  of 
the  demands  of  space,  and  because  it  was  felt  that  this  portion  of  the 
projected  work  would  perhaps  meet  no  very  serious  need  in  the  usual 
college  courses.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  believed  that  the  intelligent 


viii  PREFACE 

study  of  present-day  governments  must  involve  at  all  stages  the  tak- 
ing into  careful  account  of  the  historical  origins  and  growth  of  these 
governments.  Hence  a  considerable  amount  of  space  has  been  de- 
voted to  sketches  of  constitutional  history,  which,  however,  are  in  all 
instances  so  arranged  that  they  may  readily  be  omitted  if  their  omis- 
sion is  deemed  desirable.  In  the  case  of  countries  whose  political  sys- 
tem underwent  a  general  reconstitution  during  the  Revolutionary 
and  Napoleonic  era  it  has  been  thought  not  feasible  to  allude,  even 
briefly,  to  historical  developments  prior  to  the  later  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. In  the  third  place,  it  has  been  considered  desirable  to  include 
in  the  book  some  treatment  of  political  parties  and  of  the  institutions 
of  local  administration. 

Within  a  field  so  expansive  it  has  been  possible  to  undertake  but 
an  introduction  to  a  majority  of  the  subjects  touched  upon.  In  the 
foot-notes  will  be  found  references  to  books,  documents,  and  periodical 
materials  of  widely  varying  types,  and  it  is  hoped  that  some  of  these 
may  serve  to  guide  student  and  reader  to  more  intensive  information. 

The  preparation  of  the  book  has  been  facilitated  by  the  encourage- 
ment and  the  expert  advice  accorded  me  by  a  number  of  teachers  of 
government  in  colleges  and  universities  in  various  portions  of  the 
country.  And  I  have  had  at  all  times  the  patient  and  discriminating 
assistance  of  my  wife.  For  neither  the  plan  nor  the  details  of  the  work, 
however,  can  responsibility  be  attached  to  anyone  save  myself.  I 
can  only  hope  that  amidst  the  multitude  of  facts,  some  elusive  and 
many  subject  to  constant  change,  which  I  have  attempted  here  to  set 
down,  not  many  seriously  vitiating  errors  may  have  escaped  detection. 

FREDERIC  AUSTIN  OGG. 
CAMBRIDGE,  MASSACHUSETTS, 
January  10,  1913. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PART  I.— GREAT  BRITAIN 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

1.  The  Importance  of  Historical  Background I 

2.  Anglo-Saxon  Beginnings 2 

3.  The  Norman-Plantagenet  Period 6 

4.  The  Rise  of  Parliament n 

5.  Administrative  and  Judicial  Development 16 

6.  The  Tudor  Monarchy 18 

7.  Parliament  under  the  Tudors 21 

8.  The  Stuarts:  Crown  and  Parliament 26 

9.  The  Later  Stuarts:  the  Revolution  of  1688-1689 31 

II.  THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY 

1.  Crown  and  Parliament  after  1789 34 

2.  Rise  of  the  Cabinet  and  of  Political  Parties 37 

3.  The  Scottish  and  Irish  Unions 39 

4.  The  Nature  and  Sources  of  the  Constitution 41 

5.  The  Flexibility  of  the  Constitution 44 

III.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

1.  The  Crown:  Legal  Status  and  Privileges 48 

2.  The  Powers  of  the  Crown 52 

3.  The  Importance  and  Strength  of  the  Monarchy 58 

4.  Privy  Council,  Ministry,  and  Cabinet 60 

5.  The  Executive  Departments 61 

6.  The  Cabinet:  Composition  and  Character 64 

7.  The  Cabinet  in  Action 70 

IV.  PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 

1.  The  House  of  Commons  prior  to  1832 77 

2.  Parliamentary  Reform,  1832-1885 80 

3.  The  Franchise  and  the  Electoral  Questions  of  To-day 86 

4.  Electoral  Procedure  and  Regulations 92 

ix 


X  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

V.  PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 

«*•»                i.  Composition 97 

2.  The  Reform  of  the  Lords:  the  Question  prior  to  1909 101 

3.  The  Question  of  the  Lords,  1909-1911 106 

4.  The  Parliament  Act  of  1911  and  After 112 

VI.  PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE 

^  i.  The  Assembling  of  the  Chambers 117 

2.  Organization  of  the  House  of  Commons 120 

3.  Organization  of  the  House  of  Lords 125 

4.  Privileges  of  the  Houses  and  of  Members 126 

5.  The  Functions  of  Parliament 128 

6.  General  Aspects  of  Parliamentary  Procedure 132 

7.  The  Conduct  of  Business  in  the  two  Houses 138 

VII.  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

_^             i.  Parliamentarism  and  the  Party  System -143 

2.  Parties  in  the  Later  Eighteenth  and  Earlier  Nineteenth  Centuries  145 

3.  The  Second  Era  of  Whig  [Liberal]  Ascendancy,  1830-1874 147 

4.  The  Second  Era  of  Conservative  Ascendancy,  1874-1905 150 

5.  The  Liberal  Revival 155 

6.  The  Rule  of  the  Liberals,  1906-1912 158 

7.  The  Parties  of  To-day 162 

VIU.  JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

i.  English  Law 167 

2.  The  Inferior  Courts 170 

3.  The  Higher  Courts 173 

4.  Local  Government  to  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act,  1835 ....   176 

5.  Local  Government  Reform,  1835-1912 179 

6.  Local  and  Central  Government 181 

7.  Local  Government  To-day:  Rural 183 

8.  Local  Government  To-day:  Urban 186 

PART  II.— GERMANY 

IX.  THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION 

1.  Political  Development  Prior  to  1848 193 

2.  The  Creation  of  the  Empire 198 

3.  The  Constitution:  Nature  of  the  Empire 202 

4.  The  Empire  and  the  States 205 

X.  THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT:  EMPEROR,  CHANCELLOR,  AND  BUNDESRATH 

*  i.  The  Emperor 210 

2.  The  Chancellor 213 

3.  The  Bundesrath 217 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XI.  THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT:  REICHSTAG,  PARTIES,  JUDICIARY 

-—                     i.  Composition  of  the  Reichstag — Electoral  System 223 

2.  Organization  and  Powers  of  the  Reichstag 226 

3.  The  Rise  of  Political  Parties 229 

4.  Party  Politics  after  1878 233 

5.  Parties  since  1907 236 

6.  Law  and  Justice 241 

XII.  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA — THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

-"*                 i.  The  German  States  and  their  Governments 245 

2.  The  Rise  of  Constitutionalism  in  Prussia 246 

3.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 253 

XIII.  THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG — LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

1.  Composition  of  the  Landtag , 257 

2.  The  Movement  for  Electoral  Reform 260 

3.  Organization  and  Functions  of  the  Landtag 263 

4.  Local  Government:  Origins  and  Principles 265 

5.  Local  Government:  Areas  and  Organs. 268 

XIV.  THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES— ALSACE-LORRAINE 

_—^-                 i.  The  More  Important  Monarchies 275 

2.  The  Lesser  Monarchies  and  the  City  Republics 279 

3.  Alsace-Lorraine 282 

PART  HI.— FRANCE 

XV.  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789 

1.  A  Century  of  Political  Instability 289 

2.  The  Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  Era 290 

3.  From  the  Restoration  to  the  Revolution  of  1848 295 

4.  The  Second  Republic  and  the  Second  Empire 297 

5.  The  Establishment  of  the  Third  Republic 301 

6.  The  Constitution  of  To-day 304 

XVI.  THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT 

1.  The  President 308 

2.  The  Ministry 311 

3.  Parliament:  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies 315 

4.  The  Problem  of  Electoral  Reform 319 

XVII.  PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE — POLITICAL  PARTIES 

1.  Organization  and  Workings  of  the  Chambers 325 

2.  Political  Parties  since  1871 329 

XVIII.  JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

1.  French  Law 335 

2.  The  Courts , 337 

3.  Local  Government:  Development  since  1789 341 

4.  Local  Government  To-day 346 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PART  IV.— ITALY  PAGE 

XIX.  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

1.  The  Era  of  Napoleon 353 

2.  The  Restoration  and  the  Revolution  of  1848 358 

3.  The  Achievement  of  Unification 362 

4.  The  Constitution 365 

XX.  THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM 

1.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 368 

2.  Parliament:  the  Senate 372 

3.  The  Chamber  of  Deputies — Parliamentary  Procedure 375 

4.  The  Judiciary 381 

5.  Local  Government 383 

XXI.  STATE  AND  CHURCH — POLITICAL  PARTIES 

1.  Quirinal  and  Vatican 387 

2.  Parties  and  Ministries,  1861-1896 391 

3.  The  Era  of  Composite  Ministries,  1896-1912 395 

4.  Phases  of  Party  Politics 398 

PART  V.— SWITZERLAND 

XXII.  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS 

1.  The  Confederation  and  Its  Constitutions 405 

2.  The  Nation  and  the  States 411 

3.  Cantonal  Legislation:  the  Referendum  and  the  Initiative 416 

4.  The  Cantonal  Executive  and  Judiciary 421 

XXIII.  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 

1.  The  Executive 423 

2.  Legislation:  the  Federal  Assembly 426 

3.  Legislation:  the  Referendum  and  the  Initiative 430 

4.  Political  Parties 434 

5.  The  Judiciary 437 

PART  VI— AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 

XXIV.  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH 

1.  Austrian  Political  Development  to  1815 442 

2.  Hungarian  Political  Development  to  1815 445 

3.  The  Era  of  Metternich 45° 

4.  The  Revolution  of  1848 453 

5.  The  Revival  of  Constitutionalism:  the  Ausgleich 456 

XXV.  THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA 

1.  The  Constitution 460 

2.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 463 

3.  The  Reichsrath— the  Electoral  System 465 

4.  Political  Parties 474 

5.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 483 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXVI.  THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY 

1.  The  Constitution 489 

2.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 491 

3.  Parliament — the  Electoral  System 492 

4.  Political  Parties 5°° 

5.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 505 

XXVTI.  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  THE  JOINT  GOVERNMENT 

1.  The  Common  Organs  of  Government 510 

2.  The  Territories  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 514 

PART  VII.— THE  LOW  COUNTRIES 

XXVIII.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND 

1.  A  Century  of  Political  Development 517 

2.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 523 

3.  The  States-General  and  Political  Parties 525 

4.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 531 

XXIX.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM 

1.  The  Constitution — the  Crown  and  the  Ministry 534 

2.  The  Houses  of  Parliament — the  Electoral  System 538 

3.  Parties   and    Electoral   Reform   since    1894 — Parliamentary 

Procedure 542 

4.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 549 

PART  VIII.— SCANDINAVIA 

XXX.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK 

1.  Development  Prior  to  1814 553 

2.  The  Rise  of  Constitutionalism,  1814-1866 556 

3.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 559 

4.  The  Rigsdag— Political  Parties 562 

5.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 568 

XXXI.  THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  NORWAY 

1.  Political  Development  to  1814 570 

2.  The  Swedish-Norwegian  Union,  1814-1905 573 

3.  The  Norwegian  Constitution — Crown  and  Ministry 578 

4.  The  Storthing— Political  Parties 581 

5.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 587 

XXXII.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN 

1.  The  Constitution — the  Crown  and  the  Ministry 589 

2.  The  Riksdag — the  Electoral  System 591 

3.  The  Riksdag  in  Operation — Political  Parties  .  . 597 

4.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 600 


xiv  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PART  IX.— THE  IBERIAN  STATES  PAGE 

XXXIII.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN. 

1.  The  Beginnings  of  Constitutionalism 603 

2.  Political  and  Constitutional  Development,  1833-1876 606 

3.  The  Present  Constitution 61 1 

4.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry 613 

5.  The  Cortes 616 

6.  Political  Parties 620 

7.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government 626 

XXXIV.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL 

1.  A  Century  of  Political  Development 629 

2.  The  Government  of  the  Kingdom 634 

3.  The  Revolution  of  1910 639 

4.  The  Constitution  of  1911 643 


GOVERNMENTS   OF   EUROPE 

PART  I.— GREAT  BRITAIN 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

I.  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 

1.  Political  Pre-eminence  of  Great  Britain. — George  III.  is  reported 
to  have  pronounced  the  English  constitution  the  most  perfect  of  human 
formations.    One  need  hardly  concur  unreservedly  in  this  dictum  to 
be  impressed  with  the  propriety  of  beginning  a  survey  of  the  govern- 
mental systems  of  modern  Europe  with  an  examination  of  the  political 
principles,  rules,  and  practices  of  contemporary  Britain.    The  history 
of  no  other  European  nation,  in  the  first  place,  exhibits  a  develop- 
ment of  institutions  so  prolonged,  so  continuous,  and  so  orderly.    The 
governmental  forms  and  agencies  of  no  other  state  have  been  studied 
with  larger  interest  or  imitated  with  clearer  effect.    The  public  policy 
of  no  other  organized  body  of  men  has  been  more  influential  in  shaping 
the  progress,  social  and  economic  as  well  as  political,  of  the  civilized 
world.    For  the  American  student,  furthermore,  the  approach  to  the 
institutions  of  the  European  continent  is  likely  to  be  rendered  easier 
and  more  inviting  if  made  by  way  of  a  body  of  institutions  which  lies 
at  the  root  of  much  that  is  both  American  and  continental.    There 
are,  it  is  true,  not  a  few  respects  in  which  the  governmental  system  of 
the  United  States  to-day  bears  closer  resemblance  to  that  of  France, 
Germany,  Switzerland,  or  even  Italy  than  to  that  of  Great  Britain. 
The  relation,  however,  between  the  British  and  the  American  is  one, 
in  the  main,  of  historical  continuity,  while  that  between  the  French  or 
German  and  the  American  is  one  which  arises  largely  from  mere  imita- 
tion or  from  accidental  resemblance. 

2.  The  Continuity  of  Institutional  History. — No  government  can 
be  studied  adequately  apart  from  the  historical  development  which 


2  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

.has  made  it  what  it  is;  and  this  ordinarily  means  the  tracing  of  origins 
antf,  of  changes  which  stretch  through  a  prolonged  period  of  time. 
Men  i^v'esom'ethnes  imagined  that  they  were  creating  a  governmental 
system  de  now,  and  it  occasionally  happens,  as  in  France  in  1791  and 
in  Portugal  in  1911,  that  a  regime  is  instituted  which  has  little  apparent 
connection  with  the  past.  History  demonstrates,  however,  in  the 
first  place,  that  such  a  regime  is  apt  to  perpetuate  more  of  the  old  than 
is  at  the  time  supposed  and,  in  the  second  place,  that  unless  it  is  con- 
nected vitally  with  the  old,  the  chances  of  its  achieving  stability  or 
permanence  are  inconsiderable.  In  Germany,  for  example,  if  the 
institutions  of  the  Empire  were  essentially  new  in  1871,  the  govern- 
mental systems  of  the  several  federated  states,  and  of  the  towns  and 
local  districts,  exhibited  numerous  elements  which  in  origin  were 
mediaeval.  In  France,  if  central  institutions,  and  even  the  political 
arrangements  of  the  department  and  of  the  arrondissement,  do  not 
antedate  the  Revolution,  the  commune,  in  which  the  everyday  political 
activity  of  the  average  citizen  runs  its  course,  stands  essentially  as  it 
was  in  the  age  of  Louis  XIV. 

If  the  element  of  continuity  is  thus  important  in  the  political  system 
of  Germany,  France,  or  Switzerland,  in  that  of  England  it  is  fun- 
damental. It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  most  striking  aspect 
of  English  constitutional  history  is  the  continual  preservation,  in  the 
teeth  of  inevitable  changes,  of  a  preponderating  proportion  of  institu- 
tions that  reach  far  into  the  past.  "The  great  difficulty  which  presses 
on  the  student  of  the  English  constitution,  regarded  as  a  set  of  legal 
rules,"  observes  a  learned  commentator,  "is  that  he  can  never  dis- 
sociate himself  from  history.  There  is  hardly  a  rule  which  has  not  a 
long  past,  or  which  can  be  understood  without  some  consideration 
of  the  circumstances  under  which  it  first  came  into  being."  l  It  is 
the  purpose  of  the  present  volume  to  describe  European  governments 
as  they  to-day  exist  and  operate.  It  will  be  necessary  in  all  cases, 
however,  to  accord  some  consideration  to  the  origins  and  growth  of 
the  political  organs  and  practices  which  may  be  described.  In  respect 
to  Great  Britain  this  can  mean  nothing  less  than  a  survey,  brief  as  may 
be,  of  a  thousand  years  of  history. 

n.  ANGLO-SAXON  BEGINNINGS 

The  earliest  form  of  the  English  constitution  was  that  which  existed 

during  the  centuries  prior  to  the  Norman  Conquest.    Political  or- 

1 W.  R.  Anson,  The  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution  (30!  ed.,  Oxford,  1897), 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  3 

ganization  among  the  Germanic  invaders  of  Britain  was  of  the  most 
rudimentary  sort,  but  the  circumstances  of  the  conquest  and  settle- 
ment of  the  island  were  such  as  to  stimulate  a  considerable  elaboration 
of  governmental  machinery  and  powers.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
subsequent  institutional  history  the  most  important  features  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  governmental  system  were  kingship,  the  witenagemot, 
and  the  units  of  local  administration — shire,  hundred,  borough,  and 
township.1 

3.  Kingship. — The  origins  of  Anglo-Saxon  kingship  are  shrouded  in 
obscurity,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  king  of  later  days  was  originally 
nothing  more  than  the  .chief  tain  ofa^jctoriousjwar-band.  During  the 
course  of  the  occupation  of  the  conquered  island  many  chieftains 
attained  the  dignity  of  kingship,  but  with  the  progress  of  political 
consolidation  one  after  another  of  the  royal  lines  was  blotted  out,  old 
tribal  kingdoms  became  mere  administrative  districts  of  larger  king- 
doms, and,  eventually,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  whole  of  the  occupied 
portions  of  the  country  were  brought  under  the  control  of  a  single 
sovereign.  Saxon  kingship  was  elective,  patriarchal,  and,  in  respect 
to  power,  limited.  Kings  were  elected  by  the  impprianljnen  sitting 
in  council,  and  while  the  dignity  was  hereditary  in  a  family  supposedly 
descendeH  from  the  gods,  an  immediate  heir  was  not  unlikely  to  be 
passeoTover  in  favor  of  a  relative  who  was  remoter  but  abler.2  In 
both  pagan  and  Christian  times  the  royal  office  was  invested  with  a 
pronouncedly  sacred  character.  As  early  as  690  Ine  was  king  "by 
God's  grace."  But  tl^ac^alauthority  of  the  king  was  such  as  arose 
principally  from  the  dignity  ol  nis  office  and from Jthe_gej^oiialinfluence 
of"  the  individual^monarch.3  The  king  was  primarjly 
He^wj,s^Ja^-^y^r7^>ut  hig^  dooms"  were  likely  txTbe 
consultation  with  theTwise  men,  and  they  pertained  to  little  else^than 

1  See  G.  B.  Adams,  The  Origin  of  the  English  Constitution  (New  Haven,  1912), 
Chap.  I.    That  the  essentials  of  the  English  constitution  of  modern  times,  in  respect 
to  forms  and  machinery,  are  products  of  the  feudalization  of  England  which  resulted 
from  the  Norman  Conquest,  and  not  survivals  of  Anglo-Saxon  governmental 
arrangements,  is  the  well-sustained  thesis  of  this  able  study.    That  many  important 
elements,  however,  were  contributed  by  Anglo-Saxon  statecraft  is  beyond  dispute. 

2  Thus,  in  871,  the  minor  children  of  Ethelred  I.  were  passed  over  in  favor  of 
Alfred,  younger  brother  of  the  late  king. 

1  The  Anglo-Saxon  king  was  "not  the  supreme  law-giver  of  Roman  ideas,  nor  the 
fountain  of  justice,  nor  the  irresponsible  leader,  nor  the  sole  and  supreme  politician, 
nor  the  one  primary  landowner;  but  the  head  of  the  race,  the  chosen  representative 
of  its  identity,  the  successful  leader  of  its  enterprises,  the  guardian  of  its  peace,  the 
president  of  its  assemblies;  created  by  it,  and,  although  empowered  with  a  higher 
sanction  in  crowning  and  anointing,  answerable  to  his  people."  W.  Stubbs,  Select 
Charters  Illustrative  of  English  Constitutional  History  (8th  ed.,  Oxford,  1895),  12. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


the  preservation  of  the  peace.    Hejwaj^sur^«nejudge,and  all  crimes 
anoTbreaChe^JorSejgea^Talhe  to  bejbo^jed\ig6n  as 
him;  buthe  held  no  courTaHdr^e^Ead  m 
" 


Over  locaTaffairs  he  had  no  directcontroT 
whatever. 

4.  The  Witenagemot.  —  Associated  with  the  king  in  the  conduct  of 
public  business  was  tne  cojundl^of  wise  menr  or  yritenagemot.  The 
composition  of  this  body,  'being  deternrined^iTthe  main  by  the^jffl 
of  the  individual  monarch,  varied  widely  from  time  to  time.  The 
persons  most  likely  to  be  summoned  were  the  members  of  the  royal 
family,  the  greater  ecclesiastics,  the  king's  gesiths  or  thegns,  the 
ealdormen  who  administered  the  shires,  other  leading  officers  of  state 
and  of  the  household,  and  the  principal  men  who  held  land  directly 
of  the  king.  There  were  included  no  popularly  elected  representatives. 
As  a  rule,  the  witan_was  called  together  three  or  four  times  a  year. 
Acting  with  the  king,  it  made  laws,  imposficLtaxes,  concluded  treaties, 
appointed  ealdormen  and  bishops,  and  occasionally  heard  cases  not 
disposed  of  in  the  courts  of  the  shire  and  hundred.  It  was  the  witan, 
furthermore,  that  elected  the  king;  and  since  it  could  depose  him,  he 
was  obliged  to  recognize  a  certain  responsibility  to  it.  "It  has  been  a 
marked  and  important  feature  in  our  constitutional  history,"  it  is 
pointed  out  by  Anson,  "that  the  king  has  never,  in  theory,  acted  in 
matters  of  state  without  the  counsel  and  consent  of  a  body  of  ad- 
visers." 1 

6.  Township,  Borough,  and  Hundred.  —  By  reason  of  their  per- 
sistence, and  their  comparative  changelessness  from  earliest  times  to 
the  later  nineteenth  century,  the  utmost  importance  attaches  to 
Anglo-Saxon  arrangements  respecting  local  government  and  adminis- 
tration. The  snglle^t  governmental  unit  was  the  township,  com- 
prising normally  a  village  surrounded  "by  arable  landsTmeadows,  and 
woodland.  The  town^mociJ:  was  a  primary  assembly  of  the  freemen  of 
the  village,  by  whicrT,  under  the  presidency  of  a  reeve,  the  affairs  of  the 
township  were  administered.  A  variation  of  the  township  was  the 
burgh,  or  borough,  whose  population  was  apt  to  be  larger  and  whose 
political  independence  was  greater;  but  its  arrangements  for  govern- 
ment approximated  closely  those  of  the  ordinary  township.  A  group 
of  townships  comprised  a  hundred.  At  the  head  of  the  hundred  was  a 
hundred-man,  ordinarily  elected,  but  not  infrequently  appointed  by  a 
great  landowner  or  prelate  to  whom  the  lands  of  the  hundred  be- 
longed. Assisting  him  was  a  council  of  twelve  or  more  freemen.  In 

1  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  I.,  7.  Cf.  W.  Stubbs,  Constitu- 
tional History  of  England,  I.,  127. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  5 

the  hundred-moot  was  introduced  the  principle  of  representation,  for 
to  the  meetings  of  that  body  came  regularly  the  reeve,  the  parish 
priest,  and  four  "best  men"  from  each  of  the  townships  and  boroughs 
comprised  within  the  hundred.  The  hundred-moot  met  as  often  as 
once  a  month,  and  it  had  as  its  principal  function  the  adjudication  of 
disputes  and  the  decision  of  cases,  civil,  criminal,  and  ecclesiastical. 

6.  The  Shire. — Above  the  hundred  was  the  shire.  Originally, 
as  a  rule,  the  shires  were  regions  occupied  by  small  but  independent 
tribes;  eventually  they  became  administrative  districts  of  the  united 
kingdom.  At  the  head  of  the  shire  was  an  ealdorman,  appointed 
by  the  king  and  witan,  generally  from  the  prominent  men  of  the 
shire.  Subordinate  to  him  at  first,  but  in  time  overshadowing  him, 
was  the  shire-reeve,  or  sheriff,  who  was  essentially  a  representative  of 
the  crown,  sent  to  assume  charge  of  the  royal  lands  in  the  shire,  to  col- 
lect the  king's  revenue,  and  to  receive  the  king's  share  of  the  fines  im- 
posed in  the  courts.  Each  shire  had  its  moot,  and  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  the  shires  and  bishoprics  were  usually  co-terminous,  the  bishop  sat 
with  the  ealdorman  as  joint  president  of  this  assemblage.  In  theory, 
at  least,  the  shire-moot  was  a  gathering  of  the  freemen  of  the  shire. 
It  met,  as  a  rule,  twice  a  year,  and  to  it  were  entitled  to  come  all  free- 
men, in  person  or  by  representation.  It  was  within  the  competence  of 
those  who  did  not  desire  to  attend  to  send  as  spokesmen  their  reeves  or 
stewards;  so  that  the  body  was  likely  to  assume  the  character  of  a 
mixed  primary  and  representative  assembly.  The  shire-moot  decided 
disputes  pertaining  to  the  ownership  of  land,  tried  suits  for  which  a 
hearing  could  not  be  obtained  in  the  court  of  the  hundred,  and  ex- 
ercised an  incidental  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.1 

1  The  classic  description  of  Anglo-Saxon  political  institutions  is  W.  Stubbs,  Con- 
stitutional History  of  England  in  its  Origin  and  Development,  3  vols.  (6th  ed., 
Oxford,  1897),  especially  I.,  74-182;  but  recent  scholarship  has  supplemented  and 
modified  at  many  points  the  facts  and  views  therein  set  forth.  A  useful  account 
(though  likewise  subject  to  correction)  is  H.  Taylor,  The  Origins  and  Growth  of  the 
English  Constitution,  2  vols.  (new  ed.,  Boston,  1900),  I.,  Bk.  i.,  Chaps.  3-5;  and 
a  repository  of  information  is  J.  Ramsay,  The  Foundations  of  England,  2  vols. 
(London,  1898).  A  valuable  sketch  is  A.  B.  White,  The  Making  of  the  English 
Constitution,  449-1485  (New  York,  1908),  16-62.  A  brilliant  book  is  E.  A.  Free- 
man, The  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution  (4th  ed.,  London,  1884);  but  by 
reason  of  Professor  Freeman's  over-emphasis  of  the  perpetuation  of  Anglo-Saxon 
institutions  in  later  times  this  work  is  to  be  used  with  caution.  Political  and  insti- 
tutional history  is  well  set  forth  in  T.  Hodgkin,  History  of  England  to  the  Norman 
Conquest  (London,  1906),  and  C.  W.  C.  Oman,  England  before  the  Norman  Con- 
quest (London,  1910).  A  useful  manual  is  H.  M.  Chadwick,  Studies  on  Anglo- 
Saxon  Institutions  (Cambridge,  1905);  and  an  admirable  bibliography  is  C.  Gross, 
The  Sources  and  Literature  of  English  History  (London,  1900). 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


III.  THE  NORMAN-PLANTAGENET  PERIOD 

At  the  coming  of  William  the  Conqueror,  in  1066,  two  fundamental 
principles  may  be  said  to  have  been  firmly  fixed  in  the  English  political 
system.  The  first  was  that  of  thoroughgoing  local  self-government. 
The  second  was  that  of  the  obligation  of  the  king,  in  all  matters  of 
first-rate  importance,  such  as  the  laying  of  taxes  and  the  making  of 
laws,  to  seek  the  counsel  and  consent  of  some  portion  of  his  subjects. 
In  the  period  which  was  inaugurated  by  the  Conquest  neither  of  these 
principles  was  entirely  subverted,  yet  the  Norman  era  stands  out 
distinctly  as  one  in  which  the  powers  of  government  were  gathered  in 
the  hands  of  the  king  and  of  his  immediate  agents  in  a  measure  un- 
known at  any  earlier  time.  Building  in  so  far  as  was  possible  upon 
foundations  already  laid,  William  was  able  so  to  manceuveu^the_con- 
sequences  of  the  Conquest  as  to  throw  the  advantagelfall  buTwhoIIy 
upon  the  side  of  the  crown.  Feudalism,  land-tenure,  military  service, 
taxation,  the  church — to  all  was  imparted,  by  force  or  by  craft,  such  a 
bent  that  the  will  of  the  sovereign  acquired  the  practical  effect  of  law, 
and  monarchy  in  England,  traditionally  weak,  was  brought  to.the  verge 
of  sheer  absolutism. 

7.  Extension  of  Centralized  Control. — In  respect  to  the  actual 
mechanism  of  government  the  principal  achievement  of  the  Norman- 
Plan  tagenet  period  was  the  overhauling  and  consolidation"  of  the 
agencies  of  administration.  Despite  the  fact  that  local  institutions 
of  Saxon  origin  were  largely  respected,  so  that  they  have  continued  to 
this  day  the  most  substantial  Anglo-Saxon  contribution  to  English 
polity,  there  was  a  notable  linking-up  of  these  hitherto  largely  dis- 
associated institutions  with  the  institutions  of  the  central  government. 
This  was  accomplished  in  part  by  the  dissolution  of  the  earldoms  by 
which  the  monarchy  had  been  menaced  in  later  Saxon  days,  and  in 
part  by  a  tremendous  increase  of  the  power  and  importance  of  the 
sheriffs.  It  was  accomplished  still  more  largely,  however,  by^the_ 
organization  of  two  great  departments  of  government — those  of  justice 
and  finance — presided  over  by  dignitaries  of  the  royal  household  and 
manned  by  permanent  staffs  of  expert  officials.  The  department  of 
justice  comprised  the  Curia;  that  of  finance,  the  Exchequer.  At  the 
head  of  the  one  was  the  Chancellor;  at  the  head  of  the  other,  the 
Treasurer.  The  principal  officials  within  the  two  comprised  a  single 
body  of  men,  sitting  now  &sjustitiarii,or  justices,  and  now  asbarones 
of  the  Exchequer.  The  profits  and  costs  of  asserting  and  administering 
justice  and  the  incomings  and  outgoings  of  the  Exchequer  were  but 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  7 

different  aspects  of  the  same  fundamental  concerns  of  state.1  The 
justices  of  the  Curia  who  held  court  on  circuit  throughout  the  realm 
and  the  sheriffs  who  came  up  twice  a  year  to  render  to  the  barons  of  the 
Exchequer  an  account  of  the  sums  due  from  the  shires  served  as  the 
real  and  tangible  agencies  through  which  the  central  and  local  govern- 
ments were  knit  together.  As  will  appear,  it  was  from  the  Norman 
Curia  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  there  sprang  immediately  those 
diversified  departments  of  administration  whose  heads  comprise  the 
actual  executive  of  the  British  nation  to-day. 

/  8.  King  and  Great  Council. — Untrammelled  by  constitutional  re- 
strictions, the  Conqueror  and  his  earlier  successors  recognized  such 
limitations  only  upon  the  royal  authority  as  were  imposed  by  powerful 
and  turbulent  subjects.  Associated  with  the  king,  however,  was  from 
the  first  a  body  known  as  the  Commune  Concilium,  the  Common,  or 
Great,  Council.  "Thrice  a  year,"  the  Saxon  Chronicle  tells  us,  " King 
William  wore  his  crown  every  year  he  was  in  England;  at  Easter  he 
wore  it  at  Winchester;  at  Pentecost,  at  Westminster;  and  at  Christmas, 
at  Gloucester;  and  at  these  times  all  the  men  of  England  were  with 
him — archbishops,  bishops  and  abbots,  earls,  thegns  and  knights." 
By  the  phrase  "all  the  men  of  England"  is  to  be  understood  only  the 
great  ecclesiastics,  the  principal  officers  of  state,  and  the  king's  tenants- 
in-chief — in  truth,  only  such  of  the  more  important  of  these  as  were 
summoned  individually  to  the  sovereign's  presence.  At  least  in  theory, 
however,  the  Norman  kings  were  accustomed  to  consult  this  gathering 
of  magnates,  very  much  as  their  predecessors  had  been  accustomed  to 
consult  the  witenagemot,  upon  all  important  questions  of  legislation, 
finance,  and  public  policy.  It  may,  indeed,  be  said  that  it  is  the  devel- 
opment of  this  Council  that  comprises  the  central  subject  of  English 
constitutional  history;  for,  "out  of  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  one 
process  or  another,  have  been  evolved  Parliament,  the  Cabinet,  and 
the  courts  of  law."  2 

9.  The  Plantagenet  Monarchy. — During  the  century  and  a  half 
following  the  death  of  the  Conqueror  the  vigor  of  the  monarchy  varied 
enormously,  but  not  until  the  days  of  King  John  can  there  be  said  to 
have  been  any  loss  of  power  or  independence  which  amounted  to  more 
than  a  passing  circumstance.  In  a  charter  granted  at  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  in  noo,  Henry  I.  confirmed  the  liberties  of  his  subjects 
and  promised  to  respect  the  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor;  but  the 
new  sovereign  did  not  propose,  and  no  one  imagined  that  he  intended  to 
propose,  to  relax  any  of  the  essential  and  legitimate  power  which  had 

1  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  I.,  n. 

2  W.  Wilson,  The  State  (rev.  ed.,  Boston,  1903),  369. 


8  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

been  transmitted  to  him  by  his  father  and  brother.  The  reign  of 
Stephen  (1135-1154)  was  an  epoch  of  anarchy  happily  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  the  nation.  During  the  course  of  it  the  royal  authority 
sank  to  its  lowest  ebb  since  the  days  of  the  Danish  incursions.  But  the 
able  and  wonderfully  energetic  Henry  II.  (1154-1189)  recovered  all 
that  had  been  lost  and  added  not  a  little  of  his  own  account.  "Henry 
II.,"  it  has  been  said,  "found  a  nation  wearied  out  with  the  miseries 
of  anarchy,  and  the  nation  found  in  Henry  II.  a  king  with  a  passion 
for  administration."  l  With  the  fundamental  purpose  of  reducing 
all  of  his  subjects  to  equality  before  an  identical  system  of  law,  the 
great  Plantagenet  sovereign  waged  determined  warfare  upon  both 
the  rebellious  nobility  and  the  independent  clergy.  He  was  not  en- 
tirely successful,  especially  in  his  conflict  with  the  clergy;  but  he 
effectually  prevented  a  reversion  of  the  nation  to  feudal  chaos,  and  he 
invested  the  king's  law  with  a  sanction  which  it  had  known  hardly 
even  in  the  days  of  the  Conqueror.  The  reign  of  Henry  II.  has  been 
declared,  indeed,  to  "initiate  the  rule  of  law."2  By  reviving  and 
placing  upon  a  permanent  basis  the  provincial  visitations  of  the  royal 
justices,  for  both  judicial  and  fiscal  purposes,  and  by  extending  in  the 
local  administration  of  justice  and  finance  the  principle  of  the  jury, 
Henry  contributed  fundamentally  to  the  development  of  the  English 
Common  Law,  the  jury,  and  the  modern  hierarchy  of  courts.  By  ap- 
pointing as  sheriffs  lawyers  or  soldiers,  rather  than  great  barons,  he 
fostered  the  influence  of  the  central  government  in  local  affairs.  By 
commuting  military  service  for  a  money  payment  (scutage),  and  by  a 
revival  of  the  ancient  militia  system  (thefyrd),  he  brought  the  control 
of  the  armed  forces  of  the  nation  effectually  under  royal  control.  By 
the  frequent  summons  of  the  Great  Council  and  the  systematic  ref- 
erence to  it  of  business  of  moment  he  contributed  to  the  importance 
of  an  institution  through  whose  amplification  a  century  later  Parlia- 
ment was  destined  to  be  brought  into  existence. 

10.  The  Great  Charter,  1215.— The  period  of  Richard  I.  (1189-1199) 
was,  in  constitutional  matters,  a  continuation  of  that  of  Henry  II. 
Richard  was  absent  from  the  kingdom  throughout  almost  the  whole 
of  the  reign,  but  under  the  guidance  of  officials  trained  by  Henry  the 
machinery  of  government  operated  substantially  as  before.  Under 
John  (1199-1216)  came  a  breakdown,  occasioned  principally  by  the 
sovereign's  persistence  in  evading  certain  limitations  upon  the  royal 
authority  which  already  had  assumed  the  character  of  established  rules 
of  the  constitution.  One  of  these  forbade  that  the  king  should  impose 

1  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  I.,  13. 
3Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  21. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  9 

fresh  taxation  except  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Great  Council. 
Another  enjoined  that  a  man  should  not  be  fined  or  otherwise  despoiled 
of  his  property  except  in  virtue  of  judicial  sentence.  These  and  other 
principles  John  habitually  disregarded,  with  the  consequence  that  in 
time  he  found  himself  without  a  party  and  driven  to  the  alternative  of 
deposition  or  acceptance  of  the  guarantee  of  liberties  which  the  barons, 
the  Church,  and  the  people  were  united  in  demanding  of  him.  The 
upshot  was  the  promulgation,  June  15, 1215,  of  Magna  Carta. 

No  instrument  in  the  annals  of  any  nation  exceeds  in  importance  the 
Great  Charter.  The  whole  of  English  constitutional  history,  once 
remarked  Bishop  Stubbs,  is  but  one  long  commentary  upon  it.  The 
significance  of  the  Charter  arises  not  simply  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
wrested  from  an  unwilling  sovereign  by  concerted  action  of  the  various 
orders  of  society  (action  such  as  in  France  and  other  continental 
countries  never,  in  mediaeval  times,  became  possible),  but  principally 
from  the  remarkable  summary  which  it  embodies  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  English  government  in  so  far  as  those  principles  had 
ripened  by  the  thirteenth  century.  The  Charter  contained  little  or 
nothing  that  was  new.  Its  authors,  the~6drons,  sought  merely  to 
gather  up  within  a  reasonably  brief  document  those  principles  and 
customs  which  the  better  kings  of  England  had  been  wont  to  observe, 
but  which  in  the  evil  days  of  Richard  and  John  had  been  persistently 
evaded.  There  was  no  thought  of  a  new  form  of  government,  or  of  a 
new  code  of  laws,  but  rather  of  the  redress  of  present  and  practical 
grievances.  Not  a  new  constitution,  but  good  government  in  con- 
formity with  the  old  one,  was  the  essential  object.  Naturally  enough, 
therefore,  the  instrument  was  based,  in  most  of  its  important  provi- 
sions, upon  the  charter  granted  by  Henry  I.  in  noo,  even  as  that 
instrument  was  based,  in  the  main,  upon  the  righteous  laws  of  Edward 
the  Confessor.  After  like  manner,  the  Charter  of  1215  became,  in  its 
turn,  the  foundation  to  which  reassertions  of  constitutional  liberty  in 
subsequent  times  were  apt  to  return;  and,  under  greater  or  lesser  pres- 
sure, the  Charter  itself  was  "confirmed"  by  numerous  sovereigns  who 
proved  themselves  none  too  much  disposed  to  observe  its  principles. 

In  effect  the  Charter  was  a  treaty  between  the  king  and  his  dissatis- 
fied subjects.  It  was  essentially  a  feudal  document,  and  the  majority 
of  its  provisions  relate  primarily  to  the  privileges  and  rights  of  the 
barons.  None  the  less,  it  contains  clauses  that  affected  all  classes  of 
society,  and  it  is  especially  noteworthy  that  the  barons  and  clergy 
pledged  themselves  in  it  to  extend  to  their  dependents  the  same  cus- 
toms and  liberties  which  they  were  themselves  demanding  of  the 
crown.  Taking  the  Charter  as  a  whole,  it  guaranteed  the  freedom  of 


10  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  Church,  defined  afresh  and  in  precise  terms  surviving  feudal  in- 
cidents and  customs,  placed  safeguards  about  the  liberties  of  the 
boroughs,  pledged  security  of  property  and  of  trade,  and  stipulated 
important  regulations  respecting  government  and  law,  notably  that 
whenever  the  king  should  propose  the  assessment  of  scutages  or  of  un- 
usual aids  he  should  take  the  advice  of  the  General  Council,  composed 
of  the  tenants-in-chief  summoned  individually  in  the  case  of  the  greater 
ones  and  through  the  sheriffs  in  the  case  of  those  of  lesser  importance. 
Certain  general  clauses,  e.  g.,  that  pledging  that  justice  should  neither 
be  bought  nor  sold,  and  that  prescribing  that  a  freeman  might  not  be 
imprisoned,  outlawed,  or  dispossessed  of  his  property  save  by  the  judg- 
ment of  his  peers  or  by  the  law  of  the  land,  meant  in  effect  consider- 
ably less  than  they  sometimes  have  been  interpreted  to  mean.1  Yet 
even  they  served  to  emphasize  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which 
the  political  and  legal  structure  was  intended  to  be  grounded,  that, 
namely,  of  impartial  and  unvarying  justice.2 

1  The  term  "peers,"  as  here  employed,  means  only  equals  in  rank.    The  clause 
cited  does  not  imply  trial  by  jury.    It  comprises  a  guarantee  simply  that  the  barons 
should  not  be  judged  by  persons  whose  feudal  rank  was  inferior  to  their  own.    Jury 
trial  was  increasingly  common  in  the  thirteenth  century,  but  it  was  not  guaranteed 
in  the  Great  Charter. 

2  Good  accounts  of  the  institutional  aspects  of  the  Norman-Angevin  period  are 
Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  I.,  315-682,  II.,  1-164;  Taylor,  Origin  and  Growth 
of  the  English  Constitution,  L,  Bk.  2,  Chaps.  2-3;  Adams,  The  Origin  of  the  English 
Constitution,  Chaps.  1-4;  and  White,  Making  of  the  English  Constitution,  73-119. 
Two  excellent  little  books  are  Stubbs,  Early  Plantagenets  (London,  1876)  and 
Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Henry  II.  (London,  1892).    General  accounts  will  be  found  in 
T.  F.  Tout,  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  III.  to  the  Death  of 
Edward  III.,  1216-1377  (London,  1905),  and  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  England  under  the 
Normans  and  the  Angevins  (London,  1904).    A  monumental  treatise,  though  one 
which  requires  a  considerable  amount  of  correction,  is  E.  A.  Freeman,  History  of 
the  Norman  Conquest,  6  vols.  (Oxford,  1867-69),  and  a  useful  sketch  is  Freeman, 
Short  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest  (3d  ed.,  Oxford,  1901).    Among  extended 
and  more  technical  works  may  be  mentioned:  F.  Pollock  and  F.  W.  Maitland, 
History  of  English  Law,  2  vols.  (2d  ed.,  Cambridge,  1898),  which,  as  a  study  of 
legal  history  and  doctrines,  supersedes  all  earlier  works;  F.  W.  Maitland,  Domesday 
Book  and  Beyond  (Cambridge,  1897);  J.  H.  Round,  Feudal  England  (London, 
1895);  K.  Norgate,  England  under  the  Angevin  Kings,  2  vols.  (London,  1887); 
ibid.,  John  Lackland  (London,  1902),  and  J.  H.  Ramsay,  The  Angevin  Empire 
(London,  1903).    The  text  of  the  Great  Charter  is  printed  in  Stubbs,  Select  Char- 
ters, 296-306.  English  versions  may  be  found  in  G.  B.  Adams  and  H.  M.  Stephens, 
Select  Documents  of  English  Constitutional  History  (New  York,  1906),  42-52; 
S.  Amos,  Primer  of  the  English  Constitution  and  Government  (London,  1895), 
189-201;  and  University  of  Pennsylvania  Translations  and  Reprints  (transla- 
tion by  E.  P.  Cheyney),  L,  No.  6.    The  principal  special  work  on  the  subject  is 
W.  S.  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta;  a  Commentary  on  the  Great  Charter  of  King 
John   (Glasgow,   1905).     An  illuminating  commentary  is  contained  in  Adams. 
Origin  of  the  English  Constitution,  207-313. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  n 

IV.  THE  RISE  OF  PARLIAMENT 

11.  Beginnings  of  the  Representative  Principle. — The  thirteenth 
century  was  clearly  one  of  the  most  important  periods  in  the  growth 
of  the  English  constitution.  It  was  marked  not  merely  by  the  contest 
which  culminated  in  the  grant  of  the  Great  Charter  but  also  by  the 
beginnings,  in  its  essentials,  of  Parliament.  The  formative  epoch  in 
tnehlstory  of  Parliament  may  be  said  to  have  been,  more  precisely, 
the  second  half  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  (1216-1272),  together  with 
the  reign  of  the  legislator-king  Edward  I.  (1272-1307).  The  creation  of 
Parliament  as  we  know  it  came  about  through  the  signal  enlargement 
of  the  Norman-Plan tagenet  Great  Council  by  the  introduction  of  rep- 
resentative elements,  followed  by  the  splitting  of  the  heterogeneous, 
mass  of  members  definitely  into  two  co-ordinate  chambers.  The 
representative  principle  was  in  England  no  new  thing  in  the  thirteenth 
century.  As  has  appeared,  there  were  important  manifestations  of  it 
in  the  local  governmental  system  of  Anglo-Saxon  times.  As  brought 
to  bear  in  the  development  of  Parliament,  however,  the  principle  is 
generally  understood  to  have  sprung  from  the  twelfth-century^Dractice 
of  electing  assessors  to  fix  the  value  of  real  and  personal  property  for 
purposes  of  taxation,  and  of  jurors  to  present  criminal  matters  before 
the  king's  justices. )  Thus,  Henry  II.'s  Saladin  Tithe  of  1188— the  first 
national  imposition  upon  incomes  and  movable  property — was  as- 
sessed, at  least  in  part,  by  juries  of  neighbors  elected  by,  and  in  a 
sense  representative  of,  the  taxpayers  of  the  various  parishes.  By  the 
opening  of  the  thirteenth  century  the  idea  was  fast  taking  hold  upon 
the  minds  of  Englishmen,  not  only  that  the  taxpayer  ought  to  have  a 
voice  in  the  levying  of  taxes,  but  that  between  representation  and 
taxation  there  was  a  certain  natural  and  inevitable  connection.  In  the 
Great  Charter,  as  has  been  stated,  it  was  stipulated  that  in  the  assess- 
ment of  scutages  and  of  all  save  the  three  commonly  recognized  feudal 
aids  the  king  should  seek  the  advice  of  the  General  Council.  The^ 
General  Council  of  the  earlier  thirteenth  century  was  not  regularly 
a  representative  body,  but  it  was  not  beyond  the  range  of  possibility 
to  impart  to  it  a  representative  character,  and  in  point  of  fact  that  is 
precisely  what  was  done.  To  facilitate  the  process  of  taxation  it  was 
found  expedient  by  the  central  authorities  to  carry  over  into  the  do- 
main of  national  affairs  that  principle  of  popular  representation  which 
already  was  doing  approved  service  within  the  sphere  of  local  justice 
and  finance,  and  from  this  adaptation  arose,  step  by  step,  the  con- 
version of  the  old  gathering  of  feudal  magnates  into  a  national  parlia- 
mentary assembly. 


12  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

12.  Early  Parliaments. — The  means  by  which  the  transformation 
was  accomplished  consisted  in  the  first  instance,  as  has  been  said,  in 
the  introduction  into  the  Council  of  new  and  representative  elements. 
The  earliest  step  in  this  direction  was  taken  in  1213,  when  King  John, 
harassed  by  fiscal  and  political  difficulties,  addressed  to  the  sheriffs  a 
series  of  writs  commanding  that  four  discreet  knights  from  every 
county  be  sent  to  participate  in  a  deliberative  council  to  be  held  at 
-  Oxford.  The  practice  took  root  slowly.  Jii  1254  Henry  III.,  in  sore 
need  of  money  for  the  prosecution  of  his  wars  in  Gascony,  required  of 
the  sheriffs  that  two  knights  be  sent  from  each  county  to  confer  with 
the  barons  and  clergy  relative  to  the  subsidies  which  should  be  ac- 
corded the  crown.  The  desired  vote  of  supplies  was  refused  and  the 
long-brewing  contest  between  the  king  and  the  barons  broke  in  civil 
war.  But  during  the  struggle  that  ensued  the  foundations  of  Parlia- 
ment were  still  more  securely  laid.  [Following  the  king's  defeat  at 
Lewes,  in  1264,  Simon  de  Montfort,  leader  of  the  barons,  CQnvened 
a  parliament  composed  of  not  only  barons  and  clergy  but  also  four 
knights  from  each  shire,  and  at  London  during  the  following  year,  he 
caused  again  to  be  assembled,  in  addition  to  five  earls,  eighteen  barons, 
and  a  large  body  of  clergy,  two  knights  from  each  of  the  several  shires 
and  two  burgesses  from  each  of  twenty-one  towns  known  to  be  friendly 
to  the  barons'  cause.  These  proceedings  were  essentially  revolutionary 
and  unauthorized.  Even  the  gathering  of  1265,  as  Stubbs  remarks, 
presented  the  appearance  largely  of  a  party  convention,  and  there  is 
no  evidence  that  its  author  intended  such  a  body  to  be  regularly  or 
frequently  summoned,  or  even  summoned  a  second  time  at  all.  None 
the  less,  now  for  the  first  time  representatives  of  the  towns  were 
brought  into  political  co-operation  with  the  barons,  clergy,  and 
knights;  and  the  circumstance  was  filled  with  promise.  During  the 
ensuing  thirty  years  there  were  several  "parliaments,"  although  the 
extent  to  which  knights  and  burgesses  participated  in  them  is  uncer- 
tain. The  period  was  one  of  experimentation.  In  1273  four  knights 
from  each  shire  and  four  citizens  from  each  town  joined  the  magnates 
in  taking  the  oath  of  fealty  to  the  new  and  absent  sovereign,  Edward  I. 
The  First  Statute  of  Westminster,  in  1275,  declares  itself  to  have  been 
adopted  with  the  assent  of  the  "  commonalty  of  the  realm."  In  1283  a 
parliament  was  held  which  almost  precisely  duplicated  that  of  1265. 
In  1290,  and  again  in  1294,  there  was  one,  in  which,  however,  represen- 
tation of  the  towns  was  omitted. 

The  gathering  which  served  to  fix  the  type  for  all  time  to  come  was 
Edward  I.'s  so-called  Moxiel  Parliament  of  1295.  To  this  parliament 
the  king  summoned  severally  the  two  archbishops,  all  of  the  bishops, 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  13 

the  greater  abbots,  and  the  more  important  earls  and  barons;  while 
every  sheriff  was  enjoined  to  see  that  two  knights  were  chosen  from 
each  shire,  two  citizens  fron?  each  city,  and  two  burgesses  from  each 
borough.  Each  bishop  was  authorized,  furthermore,  to  bring  with 
him  his  prior  or  the  dean  of  the  cathedral  chapter,  the  archdeacons  of 
his  diocese,  one  proctor  or  agent  for  his  cathedral  chapter,  and  two  of 
his  diocesan  clergy.  In  the  parliament  as  actually  convened  there 
were  2  archbishops,  18  bishops  with  their  lesser  clergy,  66  abbots, 
3  heads  of  religious  orders,  9  earls,  41  barons,  63  knights  of  the  shire, 
and  172  representatives  of  the  cities  and  boroughs — an  aggregate  of 
approximately  400  persons.  There  were  thus  present  in  the  assemblage, 
in  person  or  by  deputy,  all  of  the  constituent  orders  of  English  society, 
and  the  irregular  device  of  Simon  de  Montfort  was  vested  at  last  with 
the  character  of  legality.  After  Edward  I.  Parliament  may  be  said 
to  have  been  an  established  institution  of  the  realm.  Its  meetings 
long  continued  intermittent  and  infrequent,  and  its  powers  from  time 
to  time  varied  enormously,  but  the  place  which  it  filled  in  the  economy 
of  the  nation  grew  ever  more  important. 

13.  Establishment  of  the  Bicameral  System. — Like  its  counter- 
part in  France,  the  Estates- General,  the  EnglisJiJ^HajnenJ.^omprised 
the  three  great  estates  or  orders — nobility,  clergy,  and  commons — of 
which,  aside  from  the  peasantry,  mediaeval' society  in 'all  western 
European  countries  was  composed.  In  the  working  out  of  its  internal 
structure,  however,  two  charnbersjesulted,  rather  than,  as  in  France, 
three.  Originally  the  three  estates  sat  separately.  Their  primary 
business  was  the  voting  of  supplies  and,  the  principle  being  that  a 
tax  ought  to  be  conceded  by  those  who  would  be  called  upon  to  pay 
it,  the  natural  course  was  for  theJor^s  to  grant  their  scutages  and 
aids,  the^cornrnoners  their  tenths  andjSfteenths,  and  the  clergy  their 
subsidies,  apart.  Indeed  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  at  times  even 
the  knights  and  the  burgesses  deliberated  separately.  Gradually, 
however,  there  appeared  certain  affiliations  of  interest  which  operated 
to  modify  the  original  practice.  In  the  first  place,  the  lesser  clergy, 
inconvenienced  by  attendance  and  preferring  to  vote  their  contribu- 
tions in  the  special  ecclesiastical. assemblages  known  as  the  convoca- 
tions of  Canterbury  and  York,  contrived  to  throw  off  entirely  their 
obligation  of  membership.  The  greater  clergy  and  the  greater  barons, 
in  the  next  place,  developed  sufficiently  large  interests  in  common  to 
be  amalgamated  with  ease  in  one  body.  Similarly,  the  lesser  barons 
found  their  interests  essentially  identical  with  those  of  the  country 
freeholders,  represented  by  the  knights  of  the  shire,  and  with  those  of 
the  burgesses.  The  upshot  was  a  gradual  alignment  of  the  aggregate 


14  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

membership  in  two  great  groups,  the  one  of  which  became  historically 
the  House  of  Lords,  the  other  the  House  of  Commons.  /  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  reign  of  Edward  III.  (1327-1377)  the  three  estates  still 
sat  separately,  but  before  the  close  of  this  period  the  bicameral  ar- 
rangement seems  definitely  to  have  been  established.  ^  There  is  np 
evidence  that  at  any  stage  of  their  history  the  three  groups  ever  sat 
as  a  single  body.  It  need  hardly  be  emphasized  that  the  entire  course 
of  English  history  since  the  fourteenth  century  has  been  affected  pro- 
foundly by  the  fact  that  the  national  assembly  took  the  form  of  two 
houses  rather  than  of  one,  as  did  the  Scotch,  of  three  as  did  the  French, 
or  of  four  as  did  the  Swedish.  But  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  lesser 
clergy,  the  number  might  very  possibly  have  been  three. 

14.  Powers  of  Finance  and  Legislation. — Structurally,  the  English 
Parliament  is  a  creation  of  the  Middle  Ages;  politically,  it  is  a  product 
of  modern  times,  and,  in  no  small  measure,  of  the  past  hundred  years. 
Before  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  however,  it  had  acquired  a  sum 
total  of  authority  which  at  least  gave  promise  of  its  development  into 
a  great  co-ordinate,  if  not  a  preponderating,  power  in  the  state.  In  the 
first  place,  it  had  forced  the  establishment  of  the  twin  principles  of 
public  finance  (i)  that  the  right  to  levy  taxes  of  every  sort  lay  within 
its  hands  and  (2)  that  the  crown  might  impose  no  direct  tax  without 
its  assent,  nor  any  indirect  tax  save  such  as  might  be  justified  under 
the  customs  recognized  in  Magna  Carta.  When  Edward  I.  confirmed 
the  Charter,  in  1297,  he  agreed  that  no  tallages  or  aids  should  there- 
after be  taken  without  the  assent  of  the  archbishops,  bishops,  earls, 
barons,  knights,  burgesses,  and  other  freemen  of  the  land.  A  statute 
of  1340  reiterated  the  principle  still  more  specifically.  In  1395  ap- 
peared the  formula  employed  to  this  day  in  the  making  of  parliamen- 
tary grants,  "by  the  Commons  with  the  advice  and  assent  of  the 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal."  And  in  1407  Henry  IV.  extended  the 
royal  approval  to  the  principle  that  money  grants  should  be  initiated 
in  the  Commons,  assented  to  by  the  Lords,  and  only  thereafter  re- 
ported to  the  king.  For  the  ancient  theory  of  taxation  by  estates  was 
substituted,  slowly  but  inevitably,  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  fiscal 
pre-eminence  of  the  Commons. 

The  second  point  at  which  Parliament  made  decisive  advance 
before  the  close  of  the  mediaeval  period  was  in  respect  to  powers  of 
ordinary  legislation.  Originally,  Parliament  was  not  conceived  of  as, 
in  the  strict  sense,  a  law-making  body  at  all.  The  magnates  who 
composed  the  General  Council  had  exercised  the  right  to  advise  the 
crown  in  legislative  matters,  and  their  successors  in  Parliament  con- 
tinued to  do  the  same,  but  the  commoners  who  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  15 

tury  were  brought  in  were  present,  in  theory,  for  fiscal  rather  than 
legislative  purposes.  The  distinction,  however,  was  diificult  to  main- 
tain, and  with  the  continued  growth  of  the  parliamentary  body  the 
legislative  character  was  recognized  eventually  to  be  inherent  in  the 
whole  of  it.  At  the  opening  of  the  fourteenth  century  laws  were  made, 
technically,  by  the  king  with  the  assent  of  the  magnates  at  the  request 
of  the  commoners.  The  knights  and  burgesses  were  recognized  as 
petitioners  for  laws,  rather  than  as  legislators.  They  could  ask  for  the 
enactment  of  a  statute,  or  for  a  clearer  definition  of  law,  but  it  was 
for  the  king  and  his  councillors  to  determine  finally  whether  legislation 
was  required  and  what  form  it  should  assume.  Even  when  a  law 
which  was  requested  was  promised  it  not  infrequently  happened  that 
the  intent  of  the  Commons  was  thwarted,  for  the  text  of  the  measure 
was  not  drawn  up,  normally,  until  after  the  parliament  was  dissolved, 
both  form  and  content  were  determined  arbitrarily  by  the  crown  and 
council,  and  between  petition  and  statute  there  might  be,  and  often 
was,  gross  discrepancy. 

16.  Development  of  the  Legislative  Process. — By  a  memorable 
statute  of  1322,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  II.,  it  was  stipulated  that  "the 
matters  which  are  to  be  established  for  the  estate  of  our  lord  the  king 
and  of  his  heirs,  and  for  the  estate  of  the  realm  and  of  the  people,  shall 
be  treated,  accorded,  and  established  in  parliaments,  by  our  lord  the 
king,  and  by  the  assent  of  the  prelates,  earls,  and  barons,  and  the  com- 
monalty of  the  realm;  according  as  it  hath  been  before  accustomed."  l« 
This  declaration  is  understood  to  have  established,  not  only  the  es- 
sentially legislative  character  of  Parliament,  but  the  legislative  parity 
of  the  commoners  with  the  magnates.  It  remained,  however,  to  sub- 
stitute for  the  right  of  petition  the  right  of  legislating  by  bill.  Through- 
out the  fourteenth  century  Parliament,  and  especially  the  Commons, 
pressed  for  an  explicit  recognition  of  the  principle  that  the  statute  in 
its  final  form  should  be  identical  with  the  petition  upon  which  it  was 
based.  In  1414  Henry  V.  granted  that  "from  henceforth  nothing  be 
enacted  to  the  petitions  of  his  commons  that  be  contrary  to  their  ask- 
ing, whereby  they  should  be  bound  without  their  assent."  2  The  prom- 
ise tended  in  practice  to  be  evaded,  and  late  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI. 
there  was  brought  about  an  alteration  of  procedure  in  accordance  with 
which  measures  were  henceforth  to  be  introduced  in  either  house,  in 
the  form  of  drafted  bills.  The  legislative  process  was  now  essentially 
reversed.  The  right  of  initiative  was  secured  to  the  Commons,  con- 
currently with  the  Lords;  the  crown  was  restricted  to  a  right  of  veto 

1  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  97. 
'Ibid.,  182. 


1 6  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

or  assent.  The  change  in  procedure  was  reflected  in  a  change  of 
formula.  Statutes  began  to  be  made  "by  the  King's  most  excellent 
majesty  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and 
temporal,  and  Commons  in  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  same."  And  these  words  comprise  the  formula 
with  which  every  act  of  Parliament  to-day  begins.  Technically,  the 
laws  were,  and  are  still,  made  by  the  crown;  practically  Parliament, 
once  merely  a  petitioning  and  advising  body,  had  become  a  full- 
fledged  legislative  assemblage. 

Throughout  the  later  fourteenth  and  earlier  fifteenth  centuries  the 
growth  of  Parliament  in  self-assertiveness  was  remarkable.  Twice 
during  the  fourteenth  century,  in  1327  and  in  1399,  it  exercised  the  fun- 
damental prerogative  of  deposing  the  sovereign  and  of  bestowing  the 
crown  upon  a  successor.1  And  before  the  close  of  the  Lancastrian  era 
it  had  assumed  advanced  ground  in  demanding  the  right  of  appro- 
priating (as  well  as  of  voting)  subsidies,  the  accounting  by  the  public 
authorities  for  moneys  expended,  the  removal  of  objectionable  minis- 
ters, and  the  annual  assembling  of  the  two  houses.  During  the  civil 
wars  of  the  second  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  parliamentary  aggres- 
siveness and  influence  materially  declined,  and  at  the  opening  of  the 
Tudor  period,  in  1485,  the  body  was  in  by  no  means  the  favorable  po- 
sition it  had  occupied  fifty  years  earlier.  As  will  appear,  its  eclipse 
continued  largely  through  the  epoch  of  the  Tudors.  Yet  its  broader 
aspects  had  been  permanently  fixed  and  its  perpetuation  in  the  con- 
stitutional system  positively  assured.2 

V.  ADMINISTRATIVE  AND  JUDICIAL  DEVELOPMENT 

16.  The  Permanent  Council. — One  line,  thus,  along  which  were 
laid  the  foundations  of  the  English  governmental  system  of  to-day 
comprised  the  transformation  of  the  Norman  Great  Council  into  the 
semi-aristocratic,  semi-democratic  assemblage  known  as  Parliament. 

1  Strictly,  upon  the  first  of  these  occasions  the  sovereign,  Edward  II.,  was  driven 
by  threat  of  deposition  to  abdicate. 

2  On  the  rise  of  Parliament  see  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  II., 
Chaps.  15, 17;  Taylor,  Origins  and  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  I.,  428-616; 
G.  B.  Smith,  History  of  the  English  Parliament,  2  vols.  (London,  1892),  I.,  Bks.  2- 
4;  White,  Making  of  the  English  Constitution,  293-401;  D.  J.  Medley,  Students' 
Manual  of  English  Constitutional  History  (2d  ed.,  Oxford,  1898),  127-150;  Tout, 
History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  III.  to  the  Death  of  Edward  III., 
Chaps.  5, 6,  10.    Valuable  biographical  treatises  are  G.  W.  Prothero,  Life  of  Simon 
de  Montfort  (London,  1877);  E.  Jenks,  Edward  Plantagenet  [Edward  I.]  the 
English  Justinian  (New  York,  1902) ;  and  T.  F.  Tout,  Edward  the  First  (London, 
1906). 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  17 

A  parallel  line  was  the  development  from  the  Great  Council  of  a  body 
designated  after  the  thirteenth  century  as  the  Permanent,  after  the 
fifteenth  as  the  Privy,  Council,  and  likewise  of  the  four  principal 
courts  of  law.  By  a  very  gradual  process  those  members  of  the  orig- 
inal Council  who  were  attached  in  some  immediate  manner  to  the 
court  or  to  the  administrative  system  acquired  a  status  which  was 
different  from  that  of  their  colleagues.  The  Great  Council  met  ir- 
regularly and  infrequently.  So  likewise  did  Parliament.  But  the 
services  of  the  court  and  the  business  of  government  must  go  on  con- 
tinuously, and  for  the  care  of  these  things  there  grew  up  a  body  which 
at  first  comprised  essentially  a  standing  commission,  an  inner  circle, 
of  the  Council,  but  which  in  time  acquired  a  virtually  independent 
position  and  was  designated,  for  purposes  of  distinction,  as  the  Per- 
manent Council.  The  composition  of  this  body  varied  from  time  to 
time.  Certain  functionaries  were  included  regularly,  while  the  re- 
maining members  owed  their  places  to  special  summons  of  the  crown. 
Its  powers  were  enormous,  being  at  the  same  time  administrative, 
judicial,  and  financial,  and  the  mass  of  business  to  which  it  was  re- 
quired to  give  attention  was  increasingly  great. 

$£?  The  Courts  of  Law. — Three  things  resulted.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Permanent  Council  acquired,  in  practice,  complete  detachment 
from  the  older  and  larger  body.  In  the  second  place,  to  facilitate  the 
accomplishment  of  its  work  there  were  introduced  into  it  trained  law- 
yers, expert  financiers,  and  men  of  other  sorts  of  special  aptitudes — 
men,  often,  who  in  rank  were  but  commoners.  Finally,  there  split  off 
from  the  body  a  succession  of  committees,  to  each  of  which  was  as- 
signed a  particular  branch  of  administrative  or  judicial  business.  In 
this  manner  arose  the  four  great  courts  of  law:  (i)  the  Court  of  Ex- 
chequer, to  which  was  consigned  jurisdiction  over  all  fiscal  causes  in 
which  the  crown  was  directly  concerned;  (2)  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas,  with  jurisdiction  over  civil  cases  between  subject  and  subject; 
(3)  the  Court  of  King's  Bench,  presided  over  nominally  by  the  king 
himself  and  taking  cognizance  of  a  variety  of  cases  for  which  other  pro- 
vision was  not  made;  and  (4)  the  Court  of  Chancery,  which,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  Chancellor,  heard  and  decided  cases  involving  the 
principles  of  equity.  The  differentiation  of  these  tribunals,  beginning 
in  the  early  twelfth  century,  was  completed  by  the  middle  of  the 
fourteenth.  Technically,  all  were  co-ordinate  courts,  from  which  ap- 
peal lay  to  the  King  in  Council;  and  of  the  judicial  prerogative  which 
the  Council  as  a  whole  thus  retained  there  are  still,  as  will  be  pointed 
out,  certain  survivals.  By  the  time  of  Henry  VI.  (1422-1461)  the 
enlargement  of  membership  and  the  specialization  of  functions  of  the 


1 3  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Permanent  Council  had  progressed  so  far  that  the  Council  had  ceased 
entirely  to  be  a  working  unit.  In  the  end  what  happened  was  that, 
precisely  as  the  Permanent  Council  had  been  derived  by  selection 
from  the  original  Great  Council,  so  from  the  overgrown  Permanent 
Council  was  constituted,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  a  smaller  and  more 
compact  administrative  body  to  which  was  assigned  the  designation 
of  "Privy  Council."1 

VI.  THE  TUDOR  MONARCHY 

18.  Popular  Absolutism. — The  salient  fact  of  the  Tudor  period  of 
English  history  (1485-1603)  is  the  vigor  and  dominance  of  the  mon- 
archy. From  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  the  nation  emerged  in  need,  above 
all  other  things,  of  discipline  and  repose.  It  was  the  part  of  the  Tudors 
to  enforce  relentlessly  the  one  and  to  foster  systematically  the  other. 
The  period  was  one  in  which  aristocratic  turbulence  was  repressed, 
extraordinary  tribunals  were  erected  to  bring  to  justice  powerful 
offenders,  vagrancy  was  punished,  labor  was  found  for  the  unem- 
ployed, trade  was  stimulated,  the  navy  was  organized  on  a  per- 
manent basis,  the  diffusion  of  wealth  and  of  education  was  encouraged, 
the  growth  of  a  strong  middle  class  was  promoted — in  short,  one  in 
which  out  of  chaos  was  brought  order  and  out  of  weakness  strength. 
These  things  were  the  work  of  a  government  which  was  strongly 
paternal,  even  sheerly  despotic,  and,  for  a  time  at  least,  the  evolution 
of  parliamentary  machinery  was  utterly  arrested.  But  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  question  in  sixteenth-century  England  was  not 
between  strong  monarchy  on  the  one  hand  and  parliamentary  govern- 
ment on  the  other.  The  alternatives  were,  rather,  strong  monarchy 
and  baronial  anarchy.  This  the  nation  clearly  perceived,  and,  of  the 
two,  it  much  preferred  the  former. 

"The  Tudor  monarchy,"  says  an  English  scholar,  "unlike  most 
other  despotisms,  did  not  depend  on  gold  or  force,  on  the  possession 
of  vast  estates,  unlimited  taxation,  or  a  standing  army.  It  rested  on 
the  willing  support  of  the  nation  at  large,  a  support  due  to  the  deeply- 
rooted  conviction  that  a  strong  executive  was  necessary  to  the  na- 
tional unity,  and  that,  in  the  face  of  the  dangers  which  threatened 
the  country  both  at  home  and  abroad,  the  sovereign  must  be  allowed  a 
free  hand.  It  was  this  conviction,  instinctively  felt  rather  than  def- 
initely realized,  which  enabled  Henry  VIII.  not  only  to  crush  open 

1  Stubbs,  Constitutional  History,  II.,  Chap.  13;  White,  Making  of  the  English 
Constitution,  123-251;  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English  Constitution,  136-143;  W.  S. 
Holdsworth,  History  of  English  Law,  3  vols.  (London,  1903-1909),  I.,  1-169. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  19 

rebellion  but  to  punish  the  slightest  signs  of  opposition  to  his  will,  to 
regulate  the  consciences  of  his  subjects,  and  to  extend  the  legal  con- 
ception of  treason  to  limits  hitherto  unknown.  It  was  this  which  ren- 
dered it  possible  for  the  ministers  of  Edward  VI.  to  impose  a  Protestant 
regime  upon  a  Romanist  majority,  and  allowed  Mary  to  enter  upon  a 
hateful  marriage  and  to  drag  the  country  into  a  disastrous  war.  It 
was  this,  finally,  which  enabled  Elizabeth  to  choose  her  own  line  in 
domestic  and  foreign  policy,  to  defer  for  thirty  years  the  war  with 
Spain,  and  to  resist,  almost  single-handed,  the  pressure  for  further 
ecclesiastical  change.  The  Tudor  monarchy  was  essentially  a  national 
monarchy.  It  was  popular  with  the  multitude,  and  it  was  actively 
supported  by  the  influential  classes,  the  nobility,  the  gentry,  the 
lawyers,  the  merchants,  who  sat  as  members  of  Parliament  at  West- 
minster, mustered  the  forces  of  the  shire  as  Lords-Lieutenant,  or  bore 
the  burden  of  local  government  as  borough  magistrates  and  justices  of 
the  peace."  1 

19.  The  Privy  Council. — The  times  of  the  Tudors  and  of  the  early 
Stuarts  have  been  designated  with  aptness  the  period  of  "government 
by  council."  Parliament  continued  to  exercise  a  certain  control  over 
legislation  and  taxation,  but  it  was  in  and  through  the  Privy  Council, 
together  with  certain  subordinate  councils,  that  the  absolute  mon- 
archy, in  the  main,  performed  its  work.  The  Privy  Council — or  simply 
"the  Council"—- comprised  ordinarily  about  seventeen  or  eighteen 
persons,  although  under  Henry  VIII.  its  membership  at  one  time  ap- 
proached forty.  The  councillors  were  almost  invariably  members  of 
one  or  the  other  of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament,  an  arrangement  by 
which  was  facilitated  the  control  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body  by 
the  Government,  but  which  did  not  yet  involve  any  recognized  re- 
sponsibility of  the  executive  to  the  legislative  branch.  After  Queen 
Mary  the  councillors  were,  with  few  exceptions,  laymen.  Technically, 
the  function  of  the  Council  was  only  advisory,  but  in  practice  even 
those  sovereigns,  as  Henry  VEIL  and  Elizabeth,  who  were  most  vig- 
ilant and  industrious,  were  obliged  to  allow  to  the  councillors  large 
discretion  in  the  conduct  of  public  business,  and  under  the  early  Stuarts 
the  Council  very  nearly  ruled  the  realm.  Representing  at  all  times  the 
sovereign,  who  was  supposed  invariably  to  be  present  at  its  delibera- 
tions, the  Council  supervised  the  work  of  administration,  regulated 
trade,  granted  licenses,  controlled  the  press,  kept  an  eye  on  the  law 
courts,  ferreted  out  plots,  took  measures  to  suppress  rebellion,  con- 
trolled the  movements  of  the  fleet,  assisted  in  the  management  of 

1G.  W.  Prothero,  Select  Statutes  and  other  Constitutional  Documents  Illustrative 
of  the  Reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  L  (Oxford,  i8g8),xvii-xviii. 


20  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ecclesiastical  affairs,  and,  in  short,  considered  and  took  action  upon 
substantially  all  concerns  of  state.  By  virtue  of  its  right  to  issue  orders 
or  ordinances  it  possessed  a  power  that  was  semi-legislative;  through 
its  regulation  of  trade,  its  management  of  loans  and  benevolences,  and 
its  determination  of  military  obligations,  it  participated  actively  in 
the  control  of  taxation;  and,  under  the  presidency  of  the  crown,  it 
possessed  the  functions  of  a  supreme  tribunal,  whose  jurisdiction,  in 
part  original  and  in  part  appellate,  was  widespread  and  peculiarly 
despotic.1 

C20i  Other  Councils:  The  Star  Chamber. — In  1487  there  was  created 
a  special  tribunal,  consisting  at  the  outset  of  seven  great  officials  and 
members  of  the  Council,  including  two  judges,  to  take  special  cogni- 
zance of  cases  involving  breaches  of  the  law  by  offenders  who  were 
too  powerful  to  be  reached  under  the  operation  of  the  ordinary  courts. 
This  was  the  tribunal  subsequently  known,  from  its  meeting-place,  as 
the  Court  of  Star  Chamber.  In  effect  it  was  from  the  beginning  a 
committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  empowered  to  exercise  a  jurisdiction 
which  in  truth  had  long  been  exercised  extra-legally  by  the  Council 
as  a  whole.  The  relation  of  the  two  institutions  inclined  in  practice  to 
become  ever  closer,  and  by  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  the 
Star  Chamber  had  been  enlarged  to  include  all  of  the  members  of  the 
Council,  together  with  the  two  chief  justices;  and  since  the  Star  Cham- 
ber possessed  a  statutory  sanction  which  the  Council  lacked,  the 
judicial  business  of  the  older  body  was  despatched  regularly  by  its 
members  sitting  under  the  guise  of  the  newer  one.  The  tendency  of 
the  Tudor  regime  toward  the  conciliar  type  of  government  is  mani- 
fested further  by  the  creation  of  numerous  subsidiary  councils  and 
courts  whose  history  cannot  be  recounted  here.  Most  of  these  were 
brought  into  existence  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  Those  of 
principal  importance  were  (i)  the  Council  of  the  North,  set  up  in  1539; 
(2)  the  Council  of  Wales,  confirmed  by  statute  of  1542;  (3)  the  Court 
of  Castle  Chamber,  reproducing  in  Ireland  the  principal  features  of 
the  English  Star  Chamber;  (4)  the  Courts  of  Augmentation,  First 
Fruits  and  Annates,  and  Wards;  and  (5)  the  Elizabethan  Court  of 
High  Commission.2 

1  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  cii.    See  A.  V.  Dicey,  The 
Privy  Council  (London,  1887);  E.  Percy,  The  Privy  Council  under  the  Tudors 
(Oxford,  1907). 

2  A.  T.  Carter,  Outlines  of  English  Legal  History  (London,  1899),  Chap.  12;  A. 
Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in  England,  ed.  by  S.  Walpole,  2  vols.  (London, 
1892),  I.,  Chap.  2;  Dicey,  The  Privy  Council,  94-115. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  21 


VTI.  PARLIAMENT  UNDER  THE  TUDORS 

21.  Control  by  the  Crown. — By  the  Tudors  generally,  and  espe- 
cially Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth,  Parliament  was  regarded  as  a  tool  to 
be  used  by  the  crown,  rather  than  as  in  any  sense  an  independent, 
co-ordinate  power  in  the  state.    When  innovations  were  to  be  intro- 
duced, such  as  those  carried  through  by  Henry  VIII.,  it  was  Tudor 
policy  to  clothe  them  with  the  vestments  of  parliamentarism,  to  the 
end  that  they  might  be  given  the  appearance  and  the  sanction  of 
popular  measures;  and  when  subsidies  were  to  be  obtained,  it  was 
recognized  to  be  expedient  to  impart  to  them,  in  similar  manner,  the 
semblance  of  voluntary  gifts  on  the  part  of  the  nation.    It  was  no  part 
of  Tudor  intent,  however,  that  Parliament  should  be  permitted  to 
initiate  measures,  or  even  to  exercise  any  actual  discretion  in  the 
adoption,  amendment,  or  rejection  of  proposals  submitted  by  the 
Government.    There  were  several  means  by  which  the  crown  con- 
trived to  impede  the  rise  of  Parliament  above  the  subordinate  position 
which  that  body  occupied  at  the  accession  of  Henry  VII.    One  was 
the  practice  of  convening  Parliament  irregularly  and  infrequently 
and  of  bringing  its  sessions  to  an  early  close.    Another,  employed 
especially  during  Thomas  Cromwell's  ministry  under  Henry  VIII.  and 
during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  was  that  of  tampering  with  the  freedom 
of  borough  and  county  elections.    A  third  was  the  habit,  also  noto- 
rious under  Henry  VIII.  and  Elizabeth,  of  dictating  and  directing  in 
all  that  was  essential  in  the  proceedings  of  the  chambers.    Henry  VIII. 
bullied  his  parliaments  systematically;  Elizabeth,  by  cajolery,  flattery, 
deceit,  and  other  arts  of  which  she  was  mistress,  attained  through  less 
boisterous  methods  the  same  general  end.     Measures  were  thrust 
upon  the  chambers  accompanied  by  peremptory  demand  for  their 
enactment;  objectionable  projects  originated  by  private  members 
were  stifled;  and  the  fundamental  parliamentary  privileges  of  free 
speech,  freedom  from  arrest,  and  access  to  the  sovereign  were  ar- 
bitrarily suspended  or  otherwise  flagrantly  violated. 

22.  The  Independence  of  the  Crown. — Finally  must  be  mentioned 
certain  devices  by  which  the  crown  was  enabled  to  evade  limitations 
theoretically  imposed  by  Parliament's  recognized  authority.    One  of 
these  was  the  issuing  of  proclamations.     In  the  sixteenth  century 
it  was  generally  maintained  that  the  sovereign,  acting  alone  or  with 
the  advice  of  the  Council,  could  issue  proclamations  controlling  the 
liberty  of  the  subject,  so  long  as  such  edicts  did  not  violate  statute  or 
common  law.    As  a  corollary,  it  was  maintained  also  that  the  crown 


22  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

could  dispense  with  the  action  of  law  in  individual  cases  and  at  times 
of  crisis.  The  range  covered  by  these  prerogatives  was  broad  and 
undefined,  and  in  the  hands  of  an  aggressive  monarch  they  consti- 
tuted a  serious  invasion  of  the  powers  of  legislation  nominally  vested 
in  Parliament.  It  is  true  that  the  act  of  1539  imparting  to  royal 
proclamations  the  force  of  law  was  repealed  in  1547;  but  proclama- 
tions continued,  especially  under  Elizabeth  and  James  L,  not  only  to 
be  numerous,  but  to  be  enforced  relentlessly  by  penalties  inflicted 
through  the  Star  Chamber.  The  most  important  power  of  Parliament 
in  the  sixteenth  century  was  still  that  of  voting  supplies.  But  in 
respect  to  finance,  as  in  respect  to  legislation,  the  crown  possessed 
effective  means  of  evading  parliamentary  control.  In  the  first  place, 
the  sovereign  possessed  large  revenues,  arising  from  crown  lands, 
feudal  rights,  profits  of  jurisdiction,  and  ecclesiastical  payments, 
with  which  Parliament  had  nothing  whatever  to  do.  In  the  second 
place,  the  great  indirect  taxes — customs  duties  and  tonnage  and 
poundage — were,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  voted  at  the  accession 
of  a  sovereign  for  the  whole  of  the  reign.  It  was  only  in  respect  to 
extraordinary  taxes — "subsidies"  and  "tenths  and  fifteenths" — that 
Parliament  was  in  a  position  effectually  to  make  or  mar  the  fiscal 
fortunes  of  the  Government;  except  that,  of  course,  it  was  always 
open  to  Parliament  to  criticise  the  financial  expedients  of  the  crown, 
such  as  the  sale  of  monopolies,  the  levy  of  "impositions,"  and  the 
collection  of  benevolences,  and  to  influence,  if  it  could,  the  policy 
pursued  in  relation  to  these  matters. 

23.  The  House  of  Lords  in  1486. — Despite  the  numerous  strictures 
that  have  been  mentioned,  Parliament  in  the  Tudor  period  by  no 
means  stood  still.  The  enormous  power  and  independence  exhibited 
by  the  chambers,  especially  the  Commons,  in  the  seventeenth  century 
was  the  product  of  substantial,  if  more  or  less  hidden,  growth  during 
the  previous  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.  The  composition  of  the  two 
houses  at  the  accession  of  Henry  VII.  was  not  clearly  defined.  The 
House  of  Lords  was  but  a  small  body.  It  comprised  simply  those 
lords,  temporal  and  spiritual,  who  were  entitled  to  receive  from  the 
king,  when  a  parliament  was  to  be  held,  a  special  writ,  i.  e.,  an  individ- 
ual summons.  The  number  of  these  was  indeterminate.  The  right 
of  the  archbishops,  the  bishops,  and  the  abbots  to  be  summoned  was 
immemorial  and  indisputable,  although  the  abbots  in  practice  evaded 
their  obligation  of  attendance,  save  in  cases  in  which  it  could  be  shown 
that  as  military  tenants  of  the  crown  they  were  obligated  to  perform 
parliamentary  duty.  Among  the  lay  nobility  the  selection  of  individ- 
uals for  summons  seems  originally  to  have  been  dependent  upon  the 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  23 

royal  pleasure.  Eventually,  however,  the  principle  became  fixed  that 
a  man  once  summoned  must  be  summoned  whenever  occasion  should 
arise,  and  that,  furthermore,  his  eldest  son  after  him  must  be  sum- 
moned in  similar  manner.  What  was  at  the  outset  an  obligation 
became  in  time  a  privilege  and  a  distinction,  and  by  the  day  when  it 
did  so  the  rule  had  become  legally  established  that  the  king  could 
not  withhold  a  writ  of  summons  from  the  heir  of  a  person  who  had 
been  once  summoned  and  had  obeyed  the  summons  by  taking  his 
seat.  During  the  fourteenth  century  the  aggregate  membership  of 
the  chamber  fluctuated  in  the  neighborhopd  of  150.  By  reason  of  the 
withdrawal  of  some  of  the  abbots  and  the  decline  of  the  baronage, 
in  the  fifteenth  century  the  body  was  yet  smaller.  The  number  of 
temporal  lords  summoned  to  the  first  parliament  of  Henry  VII.  was 
but  29. 

24.  The  House  of  Commons  in  1486. — The  House  of  Commons  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Tudor  period  was  a  body  of  some  300  members. 
It  contained  74  knights  of  the  shire,  representing  all  but  three  of  the 
forty  English  counties,  together  with  a  fluctuating  number  of  rep- 
resentatives of  cities  and  boroughs.  In  the  Model  Parliament  of  1295 
the  number  of  urban  districts  represented  was  166,  but  as  time  went 
on  the  number  declined,  in  part  because  of  the  discrimination  exercised 
from  time  to  time  in  the  selection  of  boroughs  to  be  represented,  and 
in  part  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  in  times  when  representation  did 
not  appear  to  yield  tangible  results  the  borough  taxpayers  begrudged 
the  two  shillings  per  day  paid  their  representatives,  in  some  instances 
sufficiently  to  be  induced  to  abandon  altogether  the  sending  of  mem- 
bers. By  the  time  of  Edward  IV.  (1399-1413)  the  number  of  rep- 
resented towns  had  fallen  to  HI.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century  county  members  were  elected  by  the  body  of  freeholders 
present  at  the  county  court,  but  by  statute  of  1429  the  electoral  priv- 
ilege was  restricted  to  freeholders  resident  in  the  county  and  holding 
land  of  the  yearly  rental  value  of  forty  shillings,  equivalent,  perhaps, 
to  some  £30  to  £40  in  present  values.  This  rule,  adopted  originally 
with  the  express  purpose  of  disfranchising  "the  very  great  and  out- 
rageous number  of  people  either  of  small  substance  or  of  no  value" 
who  had  been  claiming  an  electoral  equality  with  the  "worthy  knights 
and  squires,"  continued  in  operation  without  amendment  until  1832. 
The  electoral  systems  prevailing  in  the  boroughs  exhibited  at  all 
times  the  widest  variation,  and  never  prior  to  1832  was  there  serious 
attempt  to  establish  uniformity  of  practice.  In  some  places  (the  so- 
called  "scot  and  lot"  boroughs)  the  suffrage  was  exercised  by  all 
rate-payers;  in  others,  by  the  holders  of  particular  tenements  ("bur- 


24  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

gage"  franchise);  in  others  (the  "potwalloper"  boroughs)  by  all 
citizens  who  had  hearths  of  their  own;  in  many,  by  the  municipal 
corporation,  or  by  the  members  of  a  guild,  or  even  by  neighboring 
landholders.  Borough  electoral  arrangements  ran  the  full  gamut 
from  thoroughgoing  democracy  to  the  narrowest  kind  of  oligarchy. 

25.  Development  under  the   Tudors:   Composition. — During  the 
Tudor  period  the  composition  of  the  two  chambers  underwent  im- 
portant change.    In  the  Lords  the  principal  modification  was  the  sub- 
stitution of  temporal  for  spiritual  preponderance.    This  was  brought 
about  in  two  ways.  The  first  was  the  increase  numerically  of  the  hered- 
itary peers  from  thirty-six  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
to  about  eighty  at  the  accession  of  James  I.    The  second  was  the 
dropping  out  of  twenty-eight  abbots,  incident  to  the  closing  of  the 
monasteries  by  Henry  VIII.  and  only  partially  compensated  by  the 
creation  at  the  time  of  six  new  bishoprics.    In  1 509  the  number  of  lords 
spiritual  was  forty-eight;  in  1603,  it  was  but  twenty-six.    The  House 
of  Commons  under  the  Tudors  was  virtually  doubled  in  size.    The 
final  incorporation  of  Wales  in  1535  meant  the  adding  of  twenty-five 
members.    In  1536  and  1543  the  counties  of  Monmouth  and  Chester 
were  admitted  to  representation.    There  followed  the  enfranchisement 
of  a  number  of  boroughs,  and  by  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
the  representation  of  counties  had  been  increased  from  74  to  90,  and 
that  of  the  boroughs  had  been  brought  up  to  252,  giving  the  House 
an  aggregate  membership  of  342.    During  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 
twenty  new  constituencies  were  created,  and  during  that  of  Mary 
twenty-one.     But  the  most  notable  increase  was  that  which  took 
place  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  the  net  result  of  which  was  the  bringing 
in  of  62  new  borough  representatives,  in  some  cases  from  boroughs 
which  now  acquired  for  the  first  time  the  right  of  representation,  in 
others  from  boroughs  which  once  had  possessed  the  right  but  through 
disuse  had  been  construed  to  have  forfeited  it.    The  total  increase 
of  the  Commons  in  numerical  strength  during  the  Tudor  period  was 
1 66.    There  can  be  little  question  that  in  a  few  instances  parliamen- 
tary representation  was  extended  with  the  specific  purpose  of  in- 
fluencing the  political  complexion  of  the  popular  chamber.     But, 
on  the  whole,  the  reason  for  the  notable  increase,  especially  of  borough 
members,  is  to  be  found  in  the  growing  prosperity  of  the  country  and 
in  the  reliance  which  the  Tudors  were  accustomed  to  place  upon  the 
commercial  and  industrial  classes  of  the  population. 

26.  Other  Developments. — A  second  point  at  which  Parliament 
in  the  Tudor  era  underwent  modification  was  in  respect  to  permanence 
and  sittings.    Prior  to  Henry  VIII.  the  life  of  a  parliament  was  con- 


.  THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  25 

fined,  as  a  rule,  to  a  single  session,  and  sessions  were  brief.  But 
parliaments  now  ceased  to  be  meetings  to  be  broken  up  as  soon  as 
some  specific  piece  of  business  should  have  been  completed,  and  many 
were  brought  together  in  several  succeeding  sessions.  Henry  VIII.  's 
Reformation  Parliament  lasted  seven  years.  During  the  forty-five 
years  of  Elizabeth  there  were  ten  parliaments  and  thirteen  sessions. 
One  of  these  parliaments  lasted  eleven  years,  although  it  met  but 
three  times.  It  is  true  that  the  parliaments  of  Elizabeth  were  in 
session,  in  the  aggregate,  somewhat  less  than  three  years,  an  average 
for  the  reign  of  but  little  more  than  three  weeks  a  year.  But  the  point 
is  that,  slowly  but  effectually,  Parliament  as  an  institution  was  ac- 
quiring a  recognized  position  in  the  political  system  of  the  nation. 
In  1589  Thomas  Smith,  a  court  secretary,  published  a  book  entitled 
"The  Commonwealth  of  England  and  the  Manner  of  Government 
Thereof,"  in  which  was  laid  down  the  fundamental  proposition  that "  the 
most  high  and  absolute  power  of  the  realm  of  England  consisteth  in 
the  parliament";  and  there  is  no  record  that  the  proclamation  of  this 
doctrine,  even  by  a  court  official,  elicited  serious  protest  or  difference  of 
opinion.  It  was  in  the  Tudor  period,  further,  that  both  houses  in- 
stituted the  keeping  of  journals  and  that  the  appointment  of  commit- 
tees and  numerous  other  aspects  of  modern  parliamentary  procedure 
had  their  beginnings. 

Finally,  the  Elizabethan  portion  of  the  period  was  an  epoch  during 
which  there  took  place  a  very  real  growth  in  independence  of  senti- 
ment and  an  equally  notable  advance  in  consciousness  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  popular  chamber.  Even  before  the  death  of  Eliza- 
beth there  were  ill-repressed  manifestations  of  the  feeling  that  the 
Tudor  monarchy  had  done  its  work  and  that  the  time  for  a  larger 
amount  of  parliamentary  control  had  arrived.  Nothing  was  clearer 
in  1603  than  the  fact  that  the  sovereign  who  should  expect  to  get  on 
agreeably  with  his  Commons  must  be  both  liberal  and  tactful.  That 
the  Stuarts  possessed  the  first  of  these  qualities  in  only  a  very  limited 
measure  and  the  second  one  not  at  all  is  a  fact  upon  which  turns  an 
entire  chapter  of  English  constitutional  history.1 

1  Excellent  works  of  a  general  nature  on  the  Tudor  period  are  H.  A.  L.  Fisher, 
History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Henry  VII.  to  the  Death  of  Henry  VIII. 
(London,  1906);  A.  F.  Pollard,  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  Edward 
VI.  to  the  Death  of  Elizabeth  (London,  1910);  and  A.  D.  Innis,  England  under  the 
Tudors  (London,  1905).  For  institutional  history  see  Taylor,  English  Constitu- 
tion, II.,  Bk.  4.  More  specialized  treatment  will  be  found  in  Smith,  History  of  the 
English  Parliament,  I.,  Bk.  5;  Dicey,  The  Privy  Council,  76-130;  and  Taswell- 
Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  Chaps.  10,  12.  An  excellent  survey  of 
English  public  law  at  the  death  of  Henry  VII.  is  contained  in  F.  W.  Maitlaod, 


26  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


VIII.  THE  STUARTS:  CROWN  AND  PARLIAMENT 

27.  Absolutism  Becomes  Impracticable. — Throughout  the  larger 
portion  of  the  seventeenth  century  the  principal  interest  in  English 
politics  centers  in  the  contest  which  was  waged  between  the  nation 
represented  in  Parliament  and  the  sovereigns  of  the  Stuart  dynasty. 
The  question,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  was  "at  first  whether  govern- 
ment should  be  by  the  king  or  by  the  king  in  parliament,  HIFerwards 
whether  the  king  should  govern  or  whether  parliament  should  gov- 
ern." l  The  Stuart  sovereigns  brought  with  them  to  the  English 
throne  no  political  principles  that  were  new.  When  James  I.,  in  a 
speech  before  Parliament  March  21,  1610,  declared  that  monarchy 
"is  the  supremest  thing  upon  earth,"  and  that,  "as  to  dispute  what 
God  may  do  is  blasphemy,  ...  so  is  it  sedition  in  subjects  to  dispute 
what  a  King  may  do  in  the  height  of  his  power,"  2  he  was  but  giving 
expression  to  a  conception  of  the  royal  prerogative  which  had  been 
lodged  in  the  mind  of  every  Tudor,  but  which  no  Tudor  had  been  so 
tactless  as  publicly  to  avow.  The  first  two  Stuarts  confidently  ex- 
pected to  maintain  the  same  measure  of  absolutism  which  their  Tudor 
predecessors  had  maintained — nothing  more,  nothing  less.  There 
were,  however,  several  reasons  why,  for  them,  t^is  was  an  impossibility. 
The  first  arose  from  their  own  temperament.  The  bluntness,  the  lack 
of  perception  of  the  public  will,  and  the  disposition  perpetually  to 
insist  upon  the  minutest  definitions  of  prerogative,  which  so  pre- 
eminently characterized  the  members  of  the  Stuart  house  must  have 
operated  to  alienate  seventeenth-century  Englishmen  under  even  the 
most  favorable  of  circumstances.  A  second  consideration  is  the  fact, 
of  which  the  nation  was  fully  cognizant,  that  under  the  changed  con- 
ditions that  had  arisen  there  was  no  longer  the  need  of  strong  mon- 
archy that  once  there  had  been.  Law  and  order  had  long  since  been 
secured;  all  danger  of  a  feudal  reaction  had  been  effectually  removed; 
foreign  invasion  was  no  more  to  be  feared.  Strong  monarchy  had 
served  an  invaluable  purpose,  but  that  purpose  Tiad  t>een  fulfilled. 

Constitutional  History  of  England  (Cambridge,  1911),  165-236.  Books  of  large 
value  on  the  period  include  W.  Busch,  England  under  the  Tudors,  trans,  by  A.  M. 
Todd  (London,  1895),  the  only  volume  of  which  published  covers  the  reign  of 
Henry  VII.;  A.  F.  Pollard,  Henry  VIII.  (London,  1902  and  1905),  and  England 
under  the  Protector  Somerset  (London,  1900);  and  M.  Creighton,  Queen  Elizabeth 
(new  ed.,  London,  1899). 

1  C.  Ilbert,  Parliament,  its  History,  Constitution,  and  Practice  (London  and  New 
York,  1911),  28-29. 

8  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  293-204. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  27 

28.  The  Rights  of  the  Commons  Asserted. — Finally  there  was  the 
fact  of  the  enormous  growth  of  Parliament  as  an  organ  of  the  public 
will.  The  rapidity  of  that  development  hi  the  days  of  Elizabeth  is, 
and  was  at  the  time,  much  obscured  by  the  disposition  of  the  nation 
to  permit  the  Queen  to  live  out  her  days  without  being  seriously  crossed 
in  her  purposes.  But  the  magnitude  of  it  becomes  apparent  enough 
after  1603.  In  a  remarkable  document  known  as  the  Apology  of  the 
Commons,  under  date  of  June  20,  1604,  the  popular  chamber  stated 
respectfully  but  frankly  to  the  new  sovereign  what  it  considered  to  be 
its  rights  and,  through  it,  the  rights  of  the  nation.  "What  cause  we 
your  poor  Commons  have,"  runs  the  address,  "to  watch  over  our 
privileges,  is  manifest  in  itself  to  all  men.  The  prerogatives  of  princes 
may  easily,  and  do  daily,  grow;  the  privileges  of  the  subject  are  for 
the  most  part  at  an  everlasting  stand.  They  may  be  by  good  provi- 
dence and  care  preserved,  but  being  once  lost  are  not  recovered  but 
with  much  disquiet.  The  rights  and  liberties  of  the  Commons  of 
England  consisteth  chiefly  hi  these  three  things:  first,  that  the  shires, 
cities,  and  boroughs  of  England,  by  representation  to  be  present,  have 
free  choice  of  such  persons  as  they  shall  put  in  trust  to  represent  them; 
secondly,  that  the  persons  chosen,  during  the  time  of  the  parliament, 
as  also  of  their  access  and  recess,  be  free  from  restraint,  arrest,  and 
imprisonment:  thirdly,  that  in  parliament  they  may  speak  freely  their 
consciences  without  check  and  controlment,  doing  the  same  with  due 
reverence  to  the  sovereign  court  of  parliament,  that  is,  to  your  Majesty 
and  both  the  Houses,  who  all  hi  this  case  make  but  one  politic  body, 
whereof  your  Highness  is  the  head."  *  The  shrewdness  of  the  political 
philosophy  with  which  this  passage  opens  is  matched  only  by  the 
terseness  with  which  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  Commons  as  a 
body  are  enumerated.  To  the  enumeration  should  be  added,  his- 
torically, an  item  con  tamed  hi  a  petition  of  the  Commons,  May  23, 
1 6 10,  which  reads  as  follows:  "We  hold  it  an  ancient,  general,  and 
undoubted  right  of  Parliament  to  debate  freely  all  matters  which  do 
properly  concern  the  subject  and  his  right  or  state;  which  freedom  of 
debate  being  once  foreclosed,  the  essence  of  the  liberty  of  Parliament 
is  withal  dissolved."  2  The  occasion  for  this  last-mentioned  assertion 
of  right  arose  from  the  king's  habitual  assumption  that  there  were 
various  important  matters  of  state,  e.  g.,  the  laying  of  impositions  and 
the  conduct  of  foreign  relations,  which  Parliament  possessed  no  right 
so  much  as  to  discuss. 

1  Petyt,  Jus  Parliamentarium  (London,  1739),  227-243.    Portions  of  this  docu- 
ment are  printed  in  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,  286-293. 
Commons'  Journals,  I.,  431;  Prothero,  Statutes,  297. 


28  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

29.  The  Parliaments  of  James  I.  and  Charles  I.— The  tyranny  of 
James  I.  and  Charles  I.  assumed  the  form,  principally,  of  the  issue  of 
proclamations  without  the  warrant  of  statute  and  the  exaction  of 
taxes  without  the  assent  of  Parliament.  Parliament,  during  the  period 
1603-1640,  was  convened  but  seldom,  and  it  was  repeatedly  prorogued 
or  dissolved  to  terminate  its  inquiries,  thwart  its  protests,  or  subvert 
its  projected  measures.  Under  the  disadvantage  of  recurrent  inter- 
ruption the  Commons  contrived,  however,  to  carry  on  a  contest  with 
the  crown  which  was  essentially  continuous.  During  the  reign  of 
James  I.  (1603-1625)  there  were  four  parliaments.  The  first,  extending 
from  1604  to  1611,  was  called  in  session  six  times.  It  sorely  displeased 
the  king  by  remonstrating  against  his  measures,  and  especially  by  the 
persistency  with  which  it  withheld  subsidies  pending  a  redress  of 
grievances.  The  second,  summoned  in  1614,  vainly  reiterated  the 
complaints  of  its  predecessor  and  was  dissolved  without  having  en- 
acted a  single  measure.  The  third,  in  1621,  revived  the  power  of 
impeachment  (dormant  since  the  days  of  Henry  VII.),  reasserted  the 
right  of  the  chambers  to  debate  foreign  relations,  and  avenged  by  a 
fresh  protestation  of  liberties  the  arrest  of  one  of  its  members.  The 
fourth,  in  1624,  abolished  monopolies  and  renewed  the  attack  upon 
proclamations.  The  first  parliament  of  Charles  I.,  convoked  in  1625, 
criticised  the  policy  of  the  new  sovereign  and  was  dissolved.  The 
second,  in  1626,  was  dissolved  to  prevent  the  impeachment  of  the 
king's  favorite  minister,  the  Duke  of  Buckingham.  The  third,  in 
1628-1629,  drew  up  the  memorable  Petition  of  Right,  to  which  the 
king  gave  reluctant  assent,  and  in  which  arbitrary  imprisonment,  the 
billeting  of  soldiers,  the  establishment  of  martial  law  in  time  of  peace, 
and  the  imposition  of  gifts,  loans,  benevolences,  or  taxes  without 
the  consent  of  Parliament  were  specifically  prohibited.1  The  fourth 
of  Charles's  parliaments,  the  so-called  Short  Parliament  of  1640, 
followed  a  period  of  eleven  years  of  personal  government  and  showed 
no  disposition  to  surrender  the  rights  that  had  been  asserted.  The 
fifth — the  Long  Parliament,  convoked  also  in  1640 — imprisoned  and 
executed  the  king's  principal  advisers,  abolished  the  Star  Chamber 
and  the  several  other  special  courts  and  councils  of  Tudor  origin, 
pronounced  illegal  the  levy  of  ship-money  and  of  tonnage  and  pound- 
age without  parliamentary  assent,  made  provision  for  the  assembling 
of  a  parliament  within  three  years  of  the  dissolution  of  the  present 
one,  and  forced  the  king  into  a  position  where  he  was  obliged  to  yield 
or  to  resort  to  war. 

1  The  text  of  the  Petition  of  Right  is  printed  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  515-517; 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  339-342. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  29 

30.  The  Commonwealth  and  the  Protectorate. — Between  the 
political  theory  maintained  by  the  Stuart  kings  and  that  maintained 
by  the  parliamentary  majority  it  was  found  impossible  to  arrive  at  a 
compromise.  The  Civil  War  was  waged,  in  the  last  analysis,  to  deter- 
mine which  of  the  two  theories  should  prevail.  It  should  be  em- 
phasized that  the  parliamentarians  entered  upon  the  contest  with 
no  intent  to  establish  a  government  by  Parliament  alone,  in  form  or  in 
fact.  It  is  sufficiently  clear  from  the  Grand  Remonstrance  of  1641  l 
that  what  they  contemplated  was  merely  the  imposing  of  constitu- 
tional restrictions  upon  the  crown,  together  with  the  introduction  of 
certain  specific  changes  in  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  order,  e.  g., 
the  abolition  of  episcopacy.  The  culmination  of  the  struggle,  however, 
in  the  defeat  and  execution  of  the  king  threw  open  the  doors  for  every 
sort  of  constitutional  innovation,  and  between  1649  and  I66o  the 
nation  was  called  upon  to  pass  through  an  era  of  political  experimenta- 
tion happily  unparalleled  in  its  history.  May  19,  1649,  kingship  and 
the  House  of  Lords  having  been  abolished  as  equally  "useless  and 
dangerous,"2  Parliament,  to  complete  the  work  of  transformation, 
proclaimed  a  commonwealth,  or  republic;  and  on  the  great  seal  was 
inscribed  the  legend,  "In  the  first  year  of  freedom  by  God's  blessing 
restored."  During  the  continuance  of  the  Commonwealth  (1649-1654) 
various  plans  were  brought  forward  for  the  creation  of  a  parliament 
elected  by  manhood  suffrage,  but  with  the  essential  principle  involved 
neither  the  Rump  nor  the  people  at  large  possessed  substantial  sym- 
pathy. In  1654  there  was  put  in  operation  a  constitution — the  earliest 
among  written  constitutions  in  modern  Europe — known  as  the  In- 
strument of  Government.3  The  system  therein  provided,  which  was 
intended  to  be  extended  to  the  three  countries  of  England,  ScotlandA 
and  Ireland,  comprised  as  the  executive  power  a  life  Protector,  to  \ 
be  assisted  by  a  council  of  thirteen  to  twenty-one  members,  and  \ 
as  the  legislative  organ  a  unicameral  parliament  of  460  members  \ 
elected  triennially  by  all  citizens  possessing  property  to  the  value 
of  £3oo.4  Cromwell  accepted  the  office  of  Protector,  and  the  en- 

1  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution  (Oxford, 
1899),  202-232. 

8  Gardiner,  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  384-388;  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Select  Documents,  397-400. 

8  Gardiner,  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  405-417;  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Select  Documents,  407-416. 

4  On  the  history  of  this  unicameral  parliament  see  J.  A.  R.  Marriott,  Second 
Chambers,  an  Inductive  Study  in  Political  Science  (Oxford,  1910),  Chap.  3;  A.  Es- 
mein,  Les  constitutions  du  protectorat  de  Cromwell,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Publif, 
Sept-Oct.  and  Nov.-Dec.,  1899. 


30  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

suing  six  years  comprise  the  period  known  commonly  as  the  Pro- 
tectorate. 

The  government  provided  for  by  the  Instrument  was  but  indif- 
ferently successful.  Between  Cromwell  and  his  parliaments  relations 
were  much  of  the  time  notoriously  strained,  and  especially  was  there 
controversy  as  to  whether  the  powers  of  Parliament  should  be  con- 
strued to  extend  to  the  revision  of  the  constitution.  In  1657  the 
Protector  was  asked  to  assume  the  title  of  king.  This  he  refused  to 
do,  but  he  did  accept  a  new  constitution,  the  Humble  Petition  and 
Advice,  in  which  a  step  was  taken  toward  a  return  to  the  governmental 
system  swept  away  in  I649.1  This  step  comprised,  principally,  the 
re-establishment  of  a  parliament  of  two  chambers — a  House  of  Com- 
mons and,  for  lack  of  agreement  upon  a  better  designation,  "the  Other 
House."  Republicanism,  however,  failed  to  strike  root.  Shrewder 
men,  including  Cromwell,  had  recognized  all  the  while  that  the  Eng- 
lish people  were  really  royalist  at  heart,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  from  the  outset  the  restoration  of  monarchy  was  inevitable. 
Even  before  the  death  of  Cromwell,  in  1658,  the  trend  was  distinctly 
in  that  direction,  and  after  the  hand  of  the  great  Protector  had  been 
removed  from  the  helm  such  a  consummation  was  a  question  but  of 
time  and  means.  May  25,  1660,  Charles  II.,  having  engaged  to  grant 
a  general  amnesty  and  to  accept  such  measures  of  settlement  respect- 
ing religion  as  Parliament  should  determine  upon,  landed  at  Dover 
and  was  received  with  all  but  universal  acclamation.2 

1  Gardiner,  Documents  of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  447-459. 

2  The  best  of  the  general  treatises  covering  the  period  1603-1660  are  F.  C.  Mon- 
tague, The  History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  James  I.  to  the  Restoration 
(London,  1907),  and  G.  M.  Trevelyan,  England  Under  the  Stuarts  (London,  1904). 
The  monumental  works  within  the  field  are  those  of  S.  R.  Gardiner,  i.  e.,  History  of 
England,  1603-1642,  10  vols.  (new  ed.,  London,  1893-1895);  History  of  the  Great 
Civil  War,  4  vols.  (London,  1894);  and  History  of  the  Commonwealth  and  Pro- 
tectorate, 4  vols.  (London,  1894-1901).    Mr.  Gardiner's  work  is  being  continued 
by  C.  H.  Firth,  who  has  published  The  Last  Years  of  the  Protectorate,  1656-1658, 
2  vois.  (London,  1909).    The  development  of  institutions  is  described  in  Taswell- 
Langmead,  English  Constitutional  History,  Chaps.  13-14;  Smith,  History  of  the 
English  Parliament,  I.,  Bks.  6-7;  Pike,  History  of  the  House  of  Lords,  passim; 
J.  N.  Figgis,  The  Theory  of  the  Divine  Right  of  Kings  (Cambridge,  1896);  and 
G.  P.  Gooch,  History  of  English  Democratic  Ideas  in  the  Seventeenth  Century 
(Cambridge,  1898).     An  excellent  analysis  of  the  system  of  government  which 
the  Stuarts  inherited  from  the  Tudors  is  contained  in  the  introduction  of  Prothero, 
Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents.    Of  the  numerous  biographies  of  Crom- 
well the  best  is  C.  H.  Firth,  Oliver  Cromwell  (New  York,  1904).    A  valuable  survey1 
of  governmental  affairs  at  the  death  of  James  I.  is  Maitland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  237-280. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  31 


IX.  THE  LATER  STUARTS:  THE  REVOLUTION  or  1688-1689 

31.  Charles  II.  and  James  II. — Throughout  the  period  1660-1689 
there  was  enacted  a  final  grand  experiment  to  determine  whether 
a  Stuart  could,  or  would,  govern  constitutionally.  The  constitution 
in  accordance  with  which  Charles  II.  and  James  II.  were  expected  to 
govern  was  that  which  had  been  built  up  during  preceding  centuries, 
amended  by  the  important  reforms  effected  by  the  Long  Parliament  in 
1641.  The  settlement  of  1660  was  a  restoration  no  less  of  Parliament 
than  of  the  monarchy,  in  respect  both  to  structure  and  to  functions. 
The  two  chambers  were  re-established  upon  their  earlier  foundations, 
and  in  them  was  vested  the  power  to  enact  all  legislation  and  to  sanc- 
tion all  taxation.  The  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the  agreement  in 
accordance  with  which  the  Stuart  house  was  restored  forbade  the 
further  imposition  of  taxes  by  the  arbitrary  decree  of  the  crown  and 
all  exercise  of  the  legislative  power  by  the  crown  singly,  whether 
positively  through  proclamation  or  negatively  through  dispensation. 
It  required  that  henceforth  the  nature  and  amount  of  public  ex- 
penditures should,  upon  inquiry,  be  made  known  to  the  two  houses, 
and  that  ministers  might  regularly  be  held  to  account  for  their  acts 
and  those  of  the  sovereign.  The  easy-going  Charles  II.  (1660-1685) 
contrived  most  of  the  time  to  keep  fairly  within  the  bounds  that  were 
prescribed  for  him.  He  disliked  the  religious  measures  of  his  first 
parliament,  but  he  recognized  that  a  fresh  election  might  be  expected 
to  result  in  the  choice  of  a  House  of  Commons  still  less  to  his  taste, 
and,  accordingly,  the  Cavalier  Parliament  was  kept  in  existence  through- 
out the  entire  period  1661-1679.  The  parliamentary  history  of  the 
closing  years  of  the  reign  centered  about  the  question  of  the  exclusion 
of  the  king's  Catholic  brother,  James,  from  the  throne,  and  was  given 
special  interest  by  the  conflict  of  groups  foreshadowing  political  par- 
ties; but  Charles  maintained  unfailingly  an  attitude  which,  at  the 
least,  did  not  endanger  his  own  tenure  of  the  throne. 

James  II.  (1685-1688)  was  a  man  of  essentially  different  temper. 
He  was  a  Stuart  of  the  Stuarts,  irrevocably  attached  to  the  doctrine 
of  divine  right  and  sufficiently  tactless  to  take  no  pains  to  disguise 
the  fact.  He  was  able,  industrious,  and  honest,  but  obstinate  and 
intolerant.  He  began  by  promising  to  preserve  "the  government  as 
by  law  established."  But  the  ease  with  which  the  Monmouth  upris- 
ing of  1685  was  suppressed  deluded  him  into  thinking  that  through 
the  exemption  of  the  Catholics  from  the  operation  of  existing  laws  he 
might  in  time  realize  his  ambition  to  re-establish  Roman  Catholi- 


32  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

cism  in  England.  He  proceeded,  therefore,  to  issue  decrees  dispensing 
with  statutes  which  Parliament  had  enacted,  to  establish  an  ecclesias- 
tical commission  in  violation  of  parliamentary  law  of  1641,  and,  in 
1687,  to  promulgate  a  declaration  of  indulgence  extending  to  all 
Catholics  and  Non-Conformists  a  freedom  in  religious  matters  which 
was  clearly  denied  by  the  laws  of  the  country.1  By  this  arbitrary 
resumption  of  ancient  prerogative  the  theory  underlying  the  Restora- 
tion was  subverted  utterly. 

32.  The  Revolution:  the  Bill  of  Rights. — Foreseeing  no  relief  from 
absolutist  practices,  and  impelled  especially  by  the  birth,  in  1688,  of  a 
male  heir  to  the  king,  a  group  of  leading  men  representing  the  various 
political  groups  extended  to  the  stadtholder  of  Holland,  William, 
Prince  of  Orange,  an  invitation  to  repair  to  England  to  uphold  and 
protect  the  constitutional  liberties  of  the  realm.  The  result  was  the 
bloodless  revolution  of  1688.  November  5,  William  landed  at  Torquay 
and  advanced  toward  London.  James,  finding  himself  without  a 
party,  offered  vain  concessions  and  afterwards  fled  to  the  court  of  his 
ally,  Louis  XIV.  of  France.  By  a  provisional  body  of  lords,  former 
commoners,  and  officials  William  was  requested  to  act  as  temporary 
"governor"  until  the  people  should  have  chosen  a  national  "conven- 
tion." 2  This  convention  assembled  January  22,  1689,  resolved  that 
James,  by  reason  of  his  flight,  should  be  construed  to  have  abdicated, 
and  established  on  the  throne  as  joint  sovereigns  William  and  Mary, 
with  the  understanding  that  the  actual  government  of  the  realm 
should  devolve  upon  the  king. 

The  Revolution  of  1688-1689  was  signalized  by  the  putting  into 
written  form  of  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  English  constitution 
as  it  then  existed.  February  19,  1698,  the  new  sovereigns  formally 
accepted  a  Declaration  of  Right,  drawn  up  by  the  convention,  and 
by  act  of  Parliament,  December  16  following,  this  instrument,  under 
the  name  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  was  made  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  land. 
In  it  were  denied  specifically  a  long  list  of  prerogatives  to  which  the 
last  Stuart  had  laid  claim — those,  in  particular,  of  dispensing  with 
the  laws,  establishing  ecclesiastical  commissions,  levying  imposts 
without  parliamentary  assent,  and  maintaining  a  standing  army 
under  the  exclusive  control  of  the  crown.  In  it  also  were  guaranteed 
certain  fundamental  rights  which  during  the  controversies  of  the 
seventeenth  century  had  been  brought  repeatedly  in  question,  in- 
cluding those  of  petition,  freedom  of  elections,  and  freedom  of  speech 

1  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  641-644; 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  451-454. 

a  Not  properly  a  parliament,  because  not  summoned  by  a  king. 


THE  FOUNDATIONS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  33 

on  the  part  of  members  of  Parliament.1  The  necessity  of  frequent 
meetings  of  Parliament  was  affirmed,  and  a  succession  clause  was 
inserted  by  which  Roman  Catholics  and  persons  who  should  marry 
Roman  Catholics,  were  excluded  from  the  throne.  In  the  Bill  of 
Rights  were  thus  summed  up  the  essential  results  of  the  Revolution, 
and,  more  remotely,  of  the  entire  seventeenth-century  parliamentary 
movement.  With  its  enactment  the  doctrine  of  divine  right  dis- 
appeared forever  from  the  domain  of  practical  English  politics.  The 
entire  circumstance  of  William  III.'s  accession  determined  the  royal 
tenure  to  be,  as  it  thereafter  remained,  not  by  inherent  or  vested 
right,  but  conditioned  upon  the  national  will.2 

1  In  this  connection  should  be  recalled  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  May  26,  1679, 
by  whose  terms  the  right  of  an  individual,  upon  arrest,  to  have  his  case  investigated 
without  delay  was  effectually  guaranteed.     Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  517-521; 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  440-448. 

2  In  respect  to  ecclesiastical  affairs  the  Bill  of  Rights  was  supplemented  by  the 
Toleration  Act  of  May  24,  1689,  in  which  was  provided  "some  ease  to  scrupulous 
consciences  in  the  exercise  of  religion,"  i.  e.,  a  larger  measure  of  liberty  for  Protes- 
tant non-conformists.    The  text  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  is  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters, 
523-528;  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents  Illustrative  of  English  Church  History, 
645-654;  and  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  462-469;  that  of  the  Tolera- 
tion Act,  in  Gee  and  Hardy,  654-664;  and,  in  abridged  form,  in  Adams  and  Ste- 
phens, 459-462.    General  accounts  of  the  period  1660-1689  are  contained  in  R. 
Lodge,  History  of  England  from  the  Restoration  to  the  Death  of  William  III. 
(London,  1910),  Chaps.  1-15,  and  in  Trevelyan,  England  Under  the  Stuarts, 
Chaps.  11-13.    O.  Airy,  Charles  II.,  is  an  excellent  book.    The  development  of 
Parliament  in  the  period  is  described  in  Smith,  History  of  the  English  Parliament, 
I.,  Bk.  8,  II.,  Bk.  9. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY 

I.  CROWN  AND  PARLIAMENT  AFTER  1789 

33.  Elements  of  Stability  and  Change. — Structurally,  the  English 
governmental  system  was  by  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century 
substantially  complete.  The  limited  monarchy,  the  ministry,  the 
two  houses  of  parliament,  the  courts  of  law,  and  the  local  administra- 
tive agencies  were  by  that  time  constituted  very  much  as  they  are 
to-day.  The  fundamental  principles,  furthermore,  upon  which  English 
government  is  operated  were  securely  established.  Laws  could  be 
enacted  only  by  "the  king  in  parliament";  taxes  could  be  levied  only 
in  the  same  manner;  the  liberty  of  the  individual  was  safeguarded 
by  a  score  of  specific  and  oft-renewed  guarantees.  In  point  of  fact, 
however,  the  English  constitution  of  1689  was  very  far  from  being 
the  English  constitution  of  1912.  The  overturn  by  which  the  last 
Stuart  was  driven  from  the  throne  not  only  marked  the  culmination 
of  the  revolution  commenced  in  1640;  it  comprised  the  beginning  of 
a  more  extended  revolution,  peaceful  but  thoroughgoing,  by  which 
the  governmental  system  of  the  realm  was  amplified,  carried  in  new 
directions,  and  successively  readapted  to  fresh  and  changing  condi- 
tions. At  no  time  from  William  III.  to  George  V.  was  there  a  delib- 
erate overhauling  of  the  governmental  system  as  a  whole.  Save  in 
occasional  parliamentary  enactments  and  judicial  decisions,  the  con- 
stitutional changes  which  were  wrought  were  rarely  given  documentary 
expression.  Yet  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  of  the  principles 
and  practices  which  to-day  make  up  the  working  constitution  of  the 
United  Kingdom  almost  all  were  originated  or  reshaped  during  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  centuries.  In  describing,  in  succeeding 
chapters,  the  principal  aspects  of  this  governmental  system  it  will  be 
necessary  frequently  to  allude  to  these  more  recent  constitutional 
developments,  and  it  would  but  involve  repetition  to  undertake  an 
account  of  them  at  this  point.  An  enumeration  and  a  brief  char- 
acterization of  a  few  of  the  more  important  will  serve  for  the  moment 
to  impress  the  importance  constitutionally  of  the  period  under  con- 
sideration. 

34 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  35 

34.  The  Decreased  Authority  of  the  Crown. — First  may  be  men- 
tioned the  gradual  eclipse  of  the  crown  and  the  establishment  of  com- 
plete and  unquestioned  ascendancy  on  the  part  of"  Parliament.  In 
consequence  of  the  Revolution  of  1688-1689  the  sovereign  was  shorn 
definitely  of  a  number  of  important  prerogatives.  William  III., 
however,  was  no  figure-head,  and  the  crown  was  far  from  having  been 
reduced  to  impotence.  Understanding  perfectly  the  conditions  upon 
which  he  had  been  received  in  England,  William  none  the  less  did 
not  attempt  to  conceal  his  innate  love  of  power.  He  claimed  prerog- 
atives which  his  Whig  supporters  were  loath  to  acknowledge  and  he 
exercised  habitually  in  person,  and  with  telling  effect,  the  functions 
of  sovereign,  premier,  foreign  minister,  and  military  autocrat.1  His 
successor,  Anne,  though  apathetic,  was  hardly  less  attached  to  the 
interests  of  strong  monarchy.  It  was  only  with  the  accession  of  the 
Hanoverian  dynasty,  in  1714,  that  the  bulk  of  those  powers  of  govern- 
ment which  hitherto  the  crown  had  retained  slipped  inevitably  into 
the  grasp  of  the  ministers  and  of  Parliament.  George  I.  (1714-1727) 
and  George  II.  (1727-1760)  were  not  the  nonentities  they  have  been 
painted,  but,  being  alien  alike  to  English  speech,  customs,  and  polit- 
ical institutions,  they  were  in  a  position  to  defend  but  indifferently 
the  prerogatives  which  they  had  inherited.  Under  George  III.  (1760- 
1820)  there  was  a  distinct  recrudescence  of  the  monarchical  idea.  The 
king,  if  obstinate  and  below  the  average  intellectually,  was  honest, 
courageous,  and  ambitious.  He  gloried  in  the  name  of  Englishman, 
and,  above  all,  he  was  determined  to  recover  for  the  crown  some 
measure  of  the  prestige  and  authority  which  his  predecessors  had  lost. 
The  increasingly  oligarchical  character  of  Parliament  in  the  period  and 
the  disintegration  of  the  ruling  Whig  party  created  a  condition  not 
unfavorable  for  the  realization  of  the  royal  programme,  and  through 
at  least  a  score  of  years  the  influence  which  the  sovereign  exerted 
personally  upon  government  and  politics  exceeded  anything  that  had 
been  known  since  the  days  of  William  III.  In  1780  the  House  of 
Commons  gave  expression  to  its  apprehension  by  adopting  a  series 
of  resolutions,  the  first  of  which  asserted  unequivocally  that  "the 
influence  of  the  crown  has  increased,  is  increasing,  and  ought  to  be 
diminished." 

After  the  retirement  of  Lord  North,  in  1782,  however,  the  influence 
of  the  sovereign  declined  perceptibly,  and  during  the  later  portion  of 
the  reign,  clouded  by  the  king's  insanity,  all  that  had  been  gained  for 
royalty  was  again  lost.  Under  the  Regency  (1810-1820)  and  during 

1  On  the  constitution  as  it  was  at  the  death  of  William  III.,  see  Maitland,  Con- 
stitutional History  of  England,  281-329. 


36  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  reign  of  the  reactionary  and  scandal-smirched  George  IV.  (1820- 
1830)  the  popularity,  if  not  the  power,  of  the  crown  reached  its  nadir. 
In  the  days  of  the  genial  William  IV.  (1830-1837)  popularity  was 
regained,  but  not  power.  The  long  reign  of  the  virtuous  Victoria 
(1837-1901)  served  completely  to  rehabilitate  the  monarchy  in  the 
respect  and  affections  of  the  British  people,  a  consummation  whose 
stability  more  recent  sovereigns  have  done  nothing  to  impair.  As 
will  be  pointed  out  irj  another  place,  the  influence  which  the  sovereign 
may  wield,  and  during  the  past  three-quarters  of  a  century  has 
wielded,  in  the  actual  conduct  of  public  affairs  is  far  from  inconsider- 
able. But,  as  will  also  be  emphasized,  that  influence  is  but  the  shadow 
of  the  authority  which  the  crown  once — even  as  late  as  the  opening 
of  the  eighteenth  century — possessed.  It  is  largely  personal  rather 
than  legal;  it  is  asserted  within  the  domain  of  foreign  relations  rather 
more  than  within  that  of  domestic  affairs;  and  as  against  the  adverse 
will  of  the  nation  expressed  through  Parliament  it  is,  in  effect,  power- 
less.1 

35.  Ascendancy  of  the  House  of  Commons. — A  second  transfor- 
mation wrought  in  the  working  constitution  since  1689  is  the  shifting 
of  the  center  of  gravity  in  Parliament  from  the  House  of  Lords 
to  the  House  of  Commons,  together  with  a  notable  democratiz- 
ing of  the  representative  chamber.  In  the  days  of  William  and 
Anne  the  House  of  Lords  was  distinctly  more  dignified  and  influ- 
ential than  the  House  of  Commons.  During  the  period  covered  by 
the  ministry  of  Walpole  (1721-1742),  however,  the  Commons  rose 
rapidly  to  the  position  of  the  preponderating  legislative  branch.  One 
contributing  cause  was  the  Septennial  Act  of  1716,  whereby  the  life 
of  a  parliament  was  extended  from  three  years  to  seven,  thus  increasing 
the  continuity  and  desirability  of  membership  in  the  Commons. 
Another  was  the  growing  importance  of  the  power  of  the  purse  as 
wielded  by  the  Commons.  A  third  was  the  fact  that  Walpole,  through- 
out his  prolonged  ministry,  sat  steadily  as  a  member  of  the  lower 
chamber  and  made  it  the  scene  of  his  remarkable  activities.  The 
establishment  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Commons  as  then  constructed 
did  not,  however,  mean  the  triumph  of  popular  government.  It  was 
but  a  step  toward  that  end.  The  House  of  Commons  in  the  eighteenth 

1  On  the  monarchical  revival  under  George  III.,  see  D.  A.  Winstanley,  Personal 
and  Party  Government;  a  Chapter  in  the  Political  History  of  the  Early  Years  of  the 
Reign  of  George  III.,  1760-1766  (Cambridge,  1910).  For  an  excellent  appraisal  of 
the  status  of  the  crown  throughout  the  period  1760-1860  see  T.  E.  May,  The 
Constitutional  History  of  England  since  the  Accession  of  George  III,  edited  and 
continued  by  F.  Holland,  3  vols.  (London,  1912),  I.,  Chaps.  1-2. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  37 

century  was  composed  of  members  elected  in  the  counties  and  boroughs 
upon  a  severely  restricted  franchise  or  appointed  outright  by  closed 
corporations  or  by  individual  magnates,  and  it  remained  for  Parliament 
during  the  nineteenth  century,  by  a  series  of  memorable  statutes,  to 
extend  the  franchise  successively  to  groups  of  people  hitherto  politi- 
cally powerless,  to  reapportion  parliamentary  seats  so  that  political 
influence  might  be  distributed  with  some  fairness  among  the  voters, 
and  to  regulate  the  conditions  under  which  campaigns  should  be 
carried  on,  elections  conducted,  and  other  operations  of  popular  gov- 
ernment undertaken.  Of  principal  importance  among  the  enactments 
by  which  these  things  were  accomplished  are  the  Reform  Act  of  1832, 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1867,  the  Ballot  Act  of  1872, 
the  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of  1883,  the  Representation 
of  the  People  Act  of  1884,  and  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act  of 
1885.  The  nature  of  these  measures  will  be  explained  subsequently.1 

II.  RISE  or  THE  CABINET  AND  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES    , 

36.  Cabinet  Origins. — In  the  third  place,  the  period  under  review  is 
important  by  reason  of  the  development  within  it  of  the  most  remark- 
able feature  of  the  English  constitutional  system  to-day,  namely,  the 
cabinet.  The  creation  of  the  cabinet  was  a  gradual  jprocesSj  and  both 
the  process  and  the  product  are  utterly  unknown  to  the  letter  of 
English  law.  It  is  customary  to  regard  as  the  immediate  antecedent 
of  the  cabinet  the  so-called  "cabal"  of  Charles  II.,  i.  e.,  the  irregular 
group  of  persons  whom  that  sovereign  selected  from  the  Privy  Council 
and  took  advice  from  informally  in  lieu  of  the  Council  itself.  In  point 
of  fact,  by  reason  principally  of  the  growing  unwieldiness  of  the  Privy 
Council,  the  practice  of  deferring  for  advice  to  a  specially  constituted 
committee,  or  inner  circle,  of  the  body  far  antedated  Charles  II.  By 
some  it  has  been  traced  to  a  period  as  remote  as  the  reign  of  Henry 
III.,  and  it  is  known  that  not  only  the  thing  itself,  but  also  the  name 
"  cabinet  council,"  existed  under  Charles  I.  The  essential  justification 
of  the  creation  of  the  cabinet  was  stated  by  Charles  II.  in  1679  m  the 
declaration  that  "the  great  number  of  the  Council  has  made  it  unfit 
for  the  secrecy  and  despatch  that  are  necessary  in  many  great  affairs." 
The  growing  authority  of  the  select  circle  of  advisors  was  the  object 
of  repeated  attacks,  and  the  name  "cabinet"  (arising  from  the  king's 
habit  of  receiving  the  members  in  a  small  private  room,  or  cabinet,  in 
the  royal  palace)  was  applied  at  first  as  a  term  of  reproach.  The 
device  met,  however,  a  genuine  need,  and  by  1689  its  perpetuation  was 

1  See  pp.  80-86. 


38  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

assured.    The  larger  Privy  Council  was  continued  in  existence,  and  it 
exists  to-day;  but  its  powers  became  long  ago  merely  nominal.1 

37.  Principles  of  Cabinet  Government  Established — Under  William 
III.  the  cabinet  took  on  rapidly  the  character  which  it  bears  to-day. 
Failing  in  the  attempt  to  govern  with  a  cabinet  including  both  Whigs 
and  Tories,  William,  in  1693-1696,  gathered  about  himself  a  body  of 
advisers  composed  exclusively  of  Whigs,  and  the  principle  speedily  be- 
came established  for  all  time  that  a  cabinet  group  must  be  made  up 
of  men  who  in  respect  to  all  important  matters  of  state  are  in  substan- 
tial agreement.    Before  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  had 
been  fixed  definitely  the  conception  of  the ;  cajjingt^as^a  body  neces- 
sarily  consisting  (a)  of  members  of  Parliament  (b)  ofth&same  political 
views  (c)  chosen  from  the  party  possessing  a  majority  in  the  House  of 
Commons  (d)  prosecuting  a  concerted  policy  (e)  under  a  common 
responsibility  to  be  signified  by  collective  resignation  in  the  event  of 
parliamentary  censure,  and  (f)  acknowledging  a  common  subordina- 
tion to  one  chief  minister.2     During  the  eighteenth-century  era  of 
royal  weakness  the  cabinet  acquired  a  measure  of  independence  by 
which  it  was  enabled  to  become,  for  all  practical  purposes,  the  ruling 
authority  of  the  realm;  and,  under  the  limitation  of  strict  accounta- 
bility to  the  House  of  Commons,  it  fulfills  substantially  that  function 
to-day.    Its  members,  as  will  appear,  are  at  the  same  time  the  heads  of 
the  principal  executive  departments,  the  leaders  in  the  legislative 
chambers,  and  the  authors  of  very  nearly  the  whole  of  governmental 
policy  and  conduct.3 

38.  Beginnings  of  Political  Parties. — A  fourth  phase  of  govern- 
mental development  within  the  period  under  survey  is  the  rise  of 
political  parties  and  the  fixing  of  the  broader  aspects  of  the  present 
party  system.    In  no  nation  to-day  does  party  play  a  r61e  of  larger 
importance  than  in  Great  Britain.     Unknown  to  the  written  portions 
of  the  constitution,  and  all  but  unknown  to  the  ordinary  law,  party 
management  and  party  operations  are,  none  the  less,  of  constant  and 
fundamental  importance  in  the  actual  conduct  of  government.    The 
origins  of  political  parties  in  England  fall  clearly  within  the  seven- 

1  H.  W.  V.  Temperley,  The  Inner  and  Outer  Cabinet  and  the  Privy  Council, 
1679-1683,  in  English  Historical  Review,  Oct.,  1912. 

2  H.  D.  Traill,  Central  Government  (London,  1881),  24-25. 

3  On  the  rise  of  the  cabinet  see,  in  addition  to  the  general  histories,  M.  T.  Blau- 
velt,  The  Development  of  Cabinet  Government  in  England  (New  York,  1902), 
Chaps.  1-8;  E.  Jenks,  Parliamentary  England;  the  Evolution  of  the  Cabinet  Sys- 
tem (New  York,  1903);  and  H.  B.  Learned,  Historical  Significance  of  the  Term 
"Cabinet"  in  England  and  the  United  States,  in  American  Political  Science  Review, 
August,  1909. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  39 

teenth  century.  It  was  the  judgment  of  Macaulay  that  the  earliest 
of  groups  to  which  the  designation  of  political  parties  can  be  applied 
were  the  Cavalier  and  Roundhead  elements  as  aligned  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Grand  Remonstrance  by  the  Long  Parliament  in  1641. 
The  first  groups,  however,  which  may  be  thought  of  as  essentially 
analogous  to  the  political  parties  of  the  present  day,  possessing  con- 
tinuity, fixity  of  principles,  and  some  degree  of  compactness  of  or- 
ganization, were  the  Whigs  and  Tories  of  the  era  of  Charles  II.  Divid- 
ing in  the  first  instance  upon  the  issue  of  the  exclusion  of  James,  these 
two  elements,  with  the  passage  of  time,  assumed  well-defined  and 
fundamentally  irreconcilable  positions  upon  the  essential  public  ques- 
tions of  the  day.  Broadly,  the  Whigs  stood  for  toleration  in  religion 
and  for  parliamentary  supremacy  in  government;  the  Tories  for 
Anglicanism  and  the  prerogative..  And  long  after  the  Stuart  mon 
archy  was  a  thing  of  the  past  these  two  great  parties  kept  up  their 
struggles  upon  these  and  other  issues.  After  an  unsuccessful  attempt 
to  govern  with  the  co-operation  of  both  parties  William  III.,  as  has 
been  pointed  out,  fell  back  definitely  upon  the  support  of  the  Whigs. 
At  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne,  in  1702,  however,  the  Whigs  were 
turned  out  of  oflke  and  the  Tories  (who  already  had  had  a  taste  of 
power  in  1698-1701)  were  put  in  control.  They  retained  office  during 
the  larger  portion  of  Queen  Anne's  reign,  but  at  the  accession  of 
George  I.  they  were  compelled  to  give  place  to  their  rivals,  and  the 
period  1714-1761  was  one  of  unbroken  Whig  ascendancy.  This  was, 
of  course,  the  period  of  the  development  of  the  cabinet  system,  and 
between  the  rise  of  that  system  and  the  growth  of  government  by 
party  there  was  an  intimate  and  inevitable  connection.  By  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century  the  rule  had  become  inflexible  that  the 
cabinet  should  be  composed  of  men  who  were  in  sympathy  with  the 
party  at  the  time  dominant  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  that  the 
returning  by  the  nation  to  the  representative  chamber  of  a  majority 
adverse  to  the  ruling  ministry  should  be  followed  by  the  retirement 
of  the  ministry.1 

III.  THE  SCOTTISH  AND  IRISH  UNIONS 

39.  The  Union  with  Scotland,  1707. — Finally  may  be  mentioned 
the  important  changes  in  the  governmental  structure  which  arose 
from  the  Act  of  Union  with  Scotland,  in  1707,  and  the  Act  of  Union 
with  Ireland,  in  1801.  Except  during  a  brief  portion  of  the  period  of 
the  Protectorate,  the  legal  relation  of  England  and  Wales,  on  the  one 

1  For  references  on  the  history  of  English  political  parties  see  pp.  144, 160$  166. 


s- 

» i 
IJ 


40  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

side,  and  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  on  the  other,  was  from  1603  to 
1707  that  simply  of  a  personal  union  through  the  crown.  Scotland 
had  her  own  parliament,  her  own  established  church,  her  own  laws, 
her  own  courts,  her  own  army,  and  her  own  system  of  finance.  By 
the  Act  of  1707  a  union  was  established  of  a  far  more  substantial  sort. 
The  two  countries  were  erected  into  a  single  kingdom,  known  hence- 
forth as  Great  Britain.  The  Scottish  parliament  was  abolished  and 
representation  was  accorded  the  Scottish  nobility  and  people  in  the 
British  parliament  at  Westminster.  The  quota  of  commoners  was 
fixed  at  forty-five  (thirty  to  be  chosen  by  the  counties  and  fifteen  by 
the  boroughs)  and  that  of  peers  (to  be  elected  by  the  entire  body  of 
Scottish  peers  at  the  beginning  of  each  parliament)  at  sixteen.  All 
laws  respecting  trade,  excises,  and  customs  were  required  to  be  uniform 
throughout  the  two  countries,  but  the  local  laws  of  Scotland  upon 
other  subjects  were  continued  in  operation,  subject  to  revision  by  the 
common  parliament.  The  Scottish  judicial  system  remained  un- 
changed; *  likewise  the  status  of  the  established  Presbyterian  Church.2 
40.  The  Union  with  Ireland,  1801. — The  history  of  Ireland,  in  most 
of  its  phases,  is  that  of  a  conquered  territory,  and  until  late  in  the 
eighteenth  century  the  constitutional  status  of  the  country  approx- 
imated, most  of  the  time,  that  of  a  crown  colony.  During  the  Middle 
Ages  the  Common  Law  and  the  institutions  of  England  were  introduced 
in  the  settled  portions  of  the  island  (the  Pale),  and  a  parliament  of  the 
English  type  began  to  be  developed;  but  Poynings's  Law  of  1494,  by 
requiring  the  assent  of  the  English  king  and  council  for  the  convening 
of  an  Irish  parliament,  by  enjoining  that  all  bills  considered  by  the 
Irish  parliament  must  first  have  been  considered  by  the  English  parlia- 
ment, and  by  declaring  all  existing  statutes  of  the  English  parliament 
to  be  binding  upon  Ireland,  effectually  stifled,  until  its  repeal  hi  1782, 
Irish  parliamentary  development.  From  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century  Catholics  were  debarred  from  membership,  and,  from  the 
early  eighteenth,  from  voting  at  parliamentary  elections.  The  repeal 
of  Poynings's  Law  in  1782  and  the  removal  of  the  Catholic  disqualifica- 
tion ten  years  later  bettered  the  situation,  yet  at  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century  Irish  governmental  arrangements  were  still  very 
unsatisfactory.  Parliament  was  independent  in  the  making  of  laws, 
but  not  in  the  control  of  administration;  and  it  was  in  no  true  sense  a 
national  and  representative  body.  The  policy  urged  by  Pitt,  namely, 

1  Save  that  appeals  might  be  carried  from  the  Scottish  Court  of  Session  to  the 
House  of  Lords. 

2J.  Mackinnon,  The  Union  of  England  and  Scotland  (London,  1896).  This 
scholarly  volume  covers  principally  the  period  1695-1745. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  41 

the  establishment  of  a  legislative  union  on  the  plan  of  that  which 
already  existed  between  England  and  Scotland,  gradually  impressed 
itself  upon  the  members  of  Parliament  as  more  feasible  than  any 
other. 

An  Act  of  Union  creating  the  "United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland"  was  adopted  by  the  Irish  parliament  in  February,  1800, 
and  by  the  British  parliament  five  months  later,  and,  January  i,  1801, 
it  was  put  in  operation.  Under  the  terms  of  this  measure  the  Irish 
parliament  was  abolished,  and  it  was  arranged  that  Ireland  should  be 
represented  in  the  common  parliament 1  by  four  spiritual  lords  and 
twenty-eight  temporal  peers,  chosen  by  the  Irish  peerage  for  life,  and 
by  one  hundred  members  (sixty-four  sitting  for  counties,  thirty-five 
for  boroughs,  and  one  for  the  University  of  Dublin)  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  Anglican  Church  of  Ireland  was  amalgamated  with 
the  established  Church  of  England,  though,  subsequently  in  1869,  it 
was  disestablished  and  disendowed.  The  union  with  Ireland  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  contract,  and  while  in  a  number  of  respects  the  conditions 
which  were  involved  in  it  have  been  altered  within  the  past  hundred 
years,  its  fundamentals  stand  to-day  unchanged.  It  is  these  funda- 
mentals, especially  the  assimilation  of  Ireland  with  Great  Britain  for 
legislative  purposes,  which  are  the  object  of  relentless  attack  on  the 
part  of  the  Home  Rule  and  other  nationalistic  and  reforming  ele- 
ments.2 

IV.  THE  NATURE  AND  SOURCES  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

41.  The  Elusiveness  of  the  Constitution. — The  description  of  the 
British  governmental  system  which  is  hereafter  to  be  undertaken  will 
be  clarified  by  a  word  of  comment  at  this  point  upon  the  character 
which  the  English  constitution  of  to-day  has  assumed,  upon  the  form  in 
which  it  exists,  and  upon  the  sources  from  which  it  has  been  drawn. 
The  term  "constitution,"  as  is  familiarly  understood,  may  be  em- 
ployed to  denote  a  written  instrument  of  fundamental  law  which  has 
been  framed  by  a  constituent  assembly,  drafted  by  an  ordinary  legisla- 
tive body,  or  promulgated  upon  the  sole  authority  of  a  dictator  or 
monarch;  or,  with  equal  propriety,  it  may  be  used  to  designate  a  body 

1  Styled  "the  Parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland." 

2  An  abridgment  of  the  text  of  the  Act  of  Union  with  Scotland  is  printed  in 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  479-483;  of  that  of  the  Act  of  Union  with 
Ireland,  ibid.,  497-506.    The  full  text  of  the  former  will  be  found  in  Robertson, 
Select  Statutes,  Cases,  and  Documents,  92-105;  that  of  the  latter,  ibid.,  157-164. 
On  Ireland  before  the  Union  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of 
England,  II.,  Chap.  16. 


42  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  customs,  laws,  and  precedents,  but  partially,  or  even  not  at  all, 
committed  to  writing,  in  accordance  with  which  the  machinery  of  a 
given  governmental  system  is  operated.  The  constitution  of  the 
United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  is  of  this  second  type. 
The  student  who  desires  to  bring  together  the  principles  and  to  tabu- 
late the  working  details  of  the  British  constitutional  order  will  find  no 
single  document,  nor  any  collection  of  documents,  in  which  these 
things  are  wholly,  or  even  largely,  set  down.  For  the  accomplishment 
of  such  a  task  it  would  be  necessary  to  review  intensively  a  thousand 
years  and  more  of  history,  to  lay  hold  of  a  statute  here  and  of  a  judi- 
cial decision  there,  to  take  constant  cognizance  of  the  rise  and  crystal- 
lization of  political  usages,  and  to  probe  to  their  inmost  recesses  the 
mechanisms  of  administration,  law-making,  taxation,  elections,  and 
judicial  procedure  as  they  have  been,  and  as  they  are  actually  operated 
before  the  spectator's  eyes.  Foremost  among  its  compeers  in  an- 
tiquity, in  comprehensiveness,  and  in  originality,  the  British  constitu- 
tion is  at  once  the  least  tangible  and  the  most  widely  influential 
among  European  bodies  of  fundamental  law. 

42.  Constituent  Elements:  the  Law. — The  elements  of  which  this 
constitution  is  to-day  composed  have  been  classified  in  various  ways. 
For  present  purposes  they  may  be  gathered  in  five  principal  cate- 
gories. In  the  first  place,  there  are  treaties  and  other  international 
agreements,  which  in  Great  Britain  as  in  the  United  States  are  invested 
with  the  character  of  supreme  law  of  the  land.  In  the  second  place, 
there  is  a  group  of  solemn  engagements  which  have  been  entered  into 
at  times  of  national  crisis  between  parties  representing  opposed,  or 
contracting,  political  forces.  Of  such  character  are  the  Great  Charter, 
the  Petition  of  Right,  and  the  Bill  of  Rights.  A  third  and  larger 
category  comprises  parliamentary  statutes  which  add  to  or  modify 
governmental  powers  or  procedure.  Statutes  of  this  type  include 
clearly  the  Habeas  Corpus  Act  of  1679,  the  Act  of  Settlement  of  1701, 
the  Septennial  Act  of  1716,  Fox's  Libel  Act  of  1792,  the  Reform  Acts 
of  1832,  1867,  and  1884,  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835,  the 
Parliamentary  and  Municipal  Elections  Act  of  1872,  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Acts  of  i88S  and  1894,  and  the  Parliament  Act  of  1911.  In  the 
fourth  place  there  is  the  Common  Law,  a  vast  body  of  legal  precept 
and  usage  which  through  the  centuries  has  acquired  fundamental  and 
immutable  character.  The  first  three  elements  mentioned,  i.  e.,  trea- 
ties, solemn  political  engagements,  and  statutes,  exist  solely,  or  almost 
so,  in  written  form.  The  rules  of  the  Common  Law,  however,  have 
not  been  reduced  to  writing,  save  in  so  far  as  they  are  contained  in 
reports,  legal  opinions,  and,  more  particularly,  authoritative  decisions 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  43 

of  the  courts,  such  as  those  on  the  rights  of  jurymen,  on  the  prerogative 
of  the  crown,  on  the  privileges  of  the  houses  of  Parliament  and  of  their 
members,  and  on  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  police. 

43.  Constituent  Elements:  the  Conventions. — Finally,  there  are 
those  portions  of  the  constitution  which  have  been  denominated 
with  aptness  by  Mr.  Dicey  "the  conventions."1  The  "law"  of 
the  constitution,  comprising  the  four  categories  of  elements  which 
have  been  enumerated,  is  at  all  points,  whether  written  or  unwritten, 
enforceable  by  the  courts;  the  conventions,  although  they  may  and 
not  seldom  do  relate  to  matters  of  vital  importance,  are  not  so 
enforceable.  The  conventions  consist  of  understandings,  practices, 
and  habits  by  which  are  regulated  a  large  proportion  of  the  actual 
operations  of  the  governmental  authorities.  They  may  have  acquired 
expression  in  written  form,  but  they  do  not  appear  in  the  statute- 
books  or  in  any  instrument  which  can  be  made  the  basis  of  action  in  a 
court  of  law.  For  example,  it  is  a  convention  of  the  constitution  which 
forbids  the  king  to  veto  a  measure  passed  by  the  houses  of  Parliament. 
IftEi€*sovereign  were  in  these  days  actually  to  veto  a  bill,  the  political 
consequences  might  be  serious,  but  there  could  be  no  question  of  the 
sheer  legality  of  the  deed.  It  is  by  virtue  of  a  convention,  not  a  law,  of 
the  constitution,  that  ministers  resign  office  when  they  have  ceased  to 
command  the  confidence  of  the  House  of  Commons;  that  a  bill  must 
be  read  three  times  before  being  finally  voted  upon  in  the  House  of 
Commons;  that  Parliament  is  convened  annually  and  that  it  consists 
of  two  houses.  The  cabinet,  and  all  that  the  cabinet,  as  such,  stands 
for,  rests  entirely  upon  convention.  To  these  things,  and  many  others, 
the  student  who  is  concerned  exclusively  with  the  constitutional  law 
of  the  British  nation  may  give  little  or  no  attention.  But  by  one  who 
is  seeking  to  understand  the  constitutional  system  as  it  is  and  as  it 
operates  attention  must  be  fixed  upon  the  conventions  quite  as  steadily 
as  upon  the  positive  rules  of  law.  If  the  conventions  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  technically  parts  of  the  constitution,  they  are  at  least  not 
infrequently  as  binding  in  practice  as  are  these  rules;  and  they  may  be 
even  more  determinative  of  the  operations  of  the  public  powers.2  The 
English  constitution  is  indeed,  as  Mr.  Bryce  has  described  it,  "a  mass 
of  precedents  carried  in  men's  minds  or  recorded  in  writing,  dicta  of 

1  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Law  of  the  Constitution  (;th  ed.,  London, 
1908),  22-29. 

2  Convention  occupies  a  large  place  in  most  political  systems,  even  in  countries 
which  are  governed  under  elaborate  written  constitutions.    Their  importance  in 
the  government  of  the  United  States  is  familiar  (see  Bryce,  American  Common- 
wealth, 3d  ed.,  I.,  Chaps.  34-35).    On  the  influence  of  conventions  in  France  see 
H.  Chardon,  L' Administration  de  la  France;  les  fonctionnaires  (Paris,  1008),  79-105. 


44  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

lawyers  or  statesmen,  customs,  usages,  understandings  and  beliefs,  a 
number  of  statutes  mixed  up  with  customs  and  all  covered  over  with  a 
parasitic  growth  of  legal  decisions  and  political  habits."  l  At  no  time 
has  an  attempt  been  made  to  collect  and  to  reduce  to  writing  this 
stupendous  mass  of  scattered  material,  and  no  such  attempt  is  likely 
ever  to  be  made.  "The  English,"  as  remarks  the  French  critic 
Boutmy,  "have  left  the  different  parts  of  their  constitution  where  the 
waves  of  history  have  deposited  them;  they  have  not  attempted  to 
bring  them  together,  to  classify  or  complete  them,  or  to  make  of  it  a 
consistent  or  coherent  whole."  2 

V.  THE  FLEXIBILITY  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

44.  Aspects  of  Continuity  and  of  Change. — In  pursuance  of  what 
has  been  said  two  observations,  representing  opposite  aspects  of  the 
same  truth,  are  pertinent.  The  first  is  that  in  respect  to  the  principles 
and  many  of  the  practices  of  the  English  constitution  it  is  pre-eminently 
true  that,  to  employ  a  familiar  phrase  of  Bishop  Stubbs,  the  roots  of 
the  present  lie  deep  in  the  past.3  The  second  is  that  the  English  con- 
stitution is  a  living  organism,  so  constantly  undergoing  modification 
that  any  description  of  it  which  may  be  attempted  is  likely  to  be 
subject  to  correction  almost  before  it  can  be  completed.  At  no  time, 
as  Mr.  Freeman  wrote,  "has  the  tie  between  the  present  and  the 
past  been  rent  asunder;  at  no  moment  have  Englishmen  sat  down  to 
put  together  a  wholly  new  constitution  in  obedience  to  some  dazzling 
theory."  4  On  the  contrary,  each  step  in  the  growth  of  the  constitu- 
tional system  has  been  the  natural  consequence  of  some  earlier  step. 
Great  changes,  it  is  true,  have  been  wrought.  To  mention  but  the 
most  obvious  illustration,  autocratic  kingship  has  been  replaced  by 
a  parliamentary  government  based  upon  a  thoroughgoing  political 
democracy.  None  the  less,  transitions  have  been  regularly  so  gradual, 
deference  to  tradition  so  habitual,  and  the  disposition  to  cling  to 
ancient  names  and  forms,  even  when  the  spirit  had  changed,  so  deep- 
seated,  that  the  constitutional  history  of  England  presents  elements  of 
continuity  which  cannot  be  paralleled  in  any  other  country  of  Europe. 

The  letter  of  a  written  constitution  may  survive  through  many 
decades  unchanged,  as  has  that  of  the  Italian  Statute  of  1848,  and  as 

1  J.  Bryce,  Flexible  and  Rigid  Constitutions,  in  Studies  in  History  and  Juris- 
prudence (London  and  New  York,  1901),  No.  3. 

2E.  Boutmy,  Studies  in  Constitutional  Law:  France — England — United  States, 
trans,  by  E.  M.  Dicey  (London,  1891),  6. 

1  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I.,  prefatory  note. 

4  Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  19. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  45 

did  that  of  the  American  constitution  between  1804  and  1865.  No 
constitutional  system,  however,  long  stands  still,  and  least  of  all  one 
of  the  English  variety,  in  which  there  exists  but  little  of  even  the  formal 
rigidity  arising  from  written  texts.  Having  no  fixed  and  orderly  shape 
assigned  it  originally  by  some  supreme  authority,  the  constitution  of 
the  United  Kingdom  has  retained  throughout  its  history  a  notably 
large  measure  of  flexibility.  It  is  by  no  means  to-day  what  it  was  fifty 
years  ago;  fifty  years  hence  it  will  be  by  no  means  what  it  is  to-day. 
In  times  past  changes  have  been  accompanied  by  violence,  or,  at  least, 
by  extraordinary  manifestations  of  the  national  will.  Nowadays  they 
are  introduced  through  the  ordinary  and  peaceful  processes  of  legisla- 
tion, of  judicial  interpretation,  and  of  administrative  practice.  Some- 
times, as  in  the  instance  of  the  recent  overhauling  of  the  status  of  the 
House  of  Lords,  they  are  accompanied  by  heated  controversy  and  wide- 
spread public  agitation.  Not  infrequently,  however,  they  represent 
inevitable  and  unopposed  amplifications  of  existing  law  or  practice 
and  are  taken  note  of  scarcely  at  all  by  the  nation  at  large. 

46.  The  Constituent  Powers  of  Parliament.— The  principal  means  (/  ^ 
by  which  changes  are  wrought  in  the  English  constitution  to-day  is 
that  of  parliamentary  enactment.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  Great 
Britain  there  is  not,  nor  has  there  ever  been,  any  attempt  to  draw  a 
line  of  distinction  between  powers  that  are  constituent  and  powers 
that  are  legislative.  All  are  vested  alike  in  Parliament,  and  in  respect 
to  the  processes  of  enactment,  repeal,  and  revision  there  is  no  difference 
whatsoever  between  a  measure  affecting  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  governmental  system  and  a  statute  pertaining  to  the  commonest 
subject  of  ordinary  law.  "Our  Parliament,"  observes  Mr.  Anson, 
"can  make  laws  protecting  wild  birds  or  shell-fish,  and  with  the  same 
procedure 'could  break  the  connection  of  Church  and  State,  or  give 
political  power  to  two  millions  of  citizens,  and  redistribute  it  among 
new  constituencies."  *  The  keystone  of  the  law  of  the  constitution  is, 
indeed,  the  unqualified  omnipotence  which  Parliament  possesses  in  the 
spheres  both  of  constitution-making  and  of  ordinary  legislation.  In 
Parliament  is  embodied  the  supreme  will  of  the  nation;  and  although 
from  time  to  time  that  will  may  declare  itself  in  widely  varying  and 
even  inconsistent  ways,  at  any  given  moment  its  pronouncements  are 
conclusive. 

46.  What  are  "  Constitutional "  Laws?— From  this  unrestricted 

competence  of  Parliament  arise  two  highly  important  facts.    One  of 

them  is  that  the  distinction  between  "constitutional"  laws,  on  the  one 

hand,  and  ordinary  statutes,  on  the  other,  is  neither  so  obvious  nor  so 

1  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  4th  ed.,  I.,  358. 


46  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

essential  as  under  most  governmental  systems.  The  concept,  even,  of 
constitutional  law  has  developed  but  slowly  among  the  English,  and 
the  phrase  is  as  yet  seldom  employed  in  legal  discussion.  In  the  United 
States  constitutional  amendments  or  addenda,  in  so  far  at  least  as  they 
assume  written  form,  emanate  from  sources  and  by  processes  different 
from  those  that  obtain  in  the  enactment  of  ordinary  statutes.  In 
most  continental  nations  the  constituent  process  is  at  least  somewhat 
different  from  that  employed  in  the  enactment  of  simple  laws.  And 
these  specially  devised  processes  are  designed  to  emphasize  the  essen- 
tial differentiation  of  the  product  from  the  handiwork  of  the  ordinary 
legislative  bodies.  In  Great  Britain,  however,  there  is,  as  has  ap- 
peared, no  difference  of  process,  and  the  distinction  between  the  law 
of  the  constitution  and  ordinary  statute  law  is  not  infrequently  all 
but  impossible  to  trace.  If  it  is  to  be  traced  at  all,  it  must  be  derived 
from  the  circumstances  of  enactment.  Some  measures,  e.  g.,  the 
Habeas  Corpus  Act,  the  Act  of  Settlement,  and  the  Parliament  Act 
of  1911,  relate  obviously  to  the  most  fundamental  and  enduring  as- 
pects of  state.  Others  just  as  clearly  have  to  do  with  ephemeral  and 
purely  legislative  concerns.  Precisely  where  the  line  should  be  drawn 
between  the  two  no  man  can  say.  It  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Bryce, 
because  of  this  obstacle  primarily  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to 
reduce  the  English  constitution  to  the  form  of  a  single  fundamental 
enactment.1 

47.  All  Parts  of  the  Constitution  subject  to  Amendment. — In  the 
second  place,  no  portion  whatsoever  of  the  constitution  is  immune  from 
amendment  or  abrogation  at  the  hand  of  Parliament,  So  forcefully 
was  the  French  observer  De  Tocqueville  impressed  with  this  fact 
that  he  went  so  far  as  to  assert  that  there  really  is  no  such  thing  as  an 
English  constitution  at  all.2  De  Tocqueville  wrote,  however,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  one  who  conceives  of  a  constitution  as  of  necessity  an 
"instrument  of  special  sanctity,  distinct  in  character  from  all  other 
laws,  and  alterable  only  by  a  peculiar  process,  differing  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent  from  the  ordinary  forms  of  legislation"; 3  and  this  concep- 
tion is  recognized  universally  nowadays  to  be  altogether  inadequate. 
There  is,  in  every  proper  sense,  an  English  constitution.  No  small 
portion  of  it,  indeed,  is  in  written  form.  And  it  is  worth  observing  that 
in  practice  there  is  tending  to  be  established  in  England  in  our  own  day 

1  Studies  in  History  and  Jurisprudence,  I.,  No.  3. 

2  "In  England  the  Parliament  has  an  acknowledged  right  to  modify  the  consti- 
tution; as,  therefore,  the  constitution  may  undergo  perpetual  changes,  it  does  not 
in  reality  exist  (die,  n'existe  point};  the  Parliament  is  at  once  a  legislative  and  a 
constituent  assembly."    (Euvres  Completes;  I.,  166-167. 

3  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  2. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  SINCE  1689  47 

some  measure  of  that  distinction  between  constituent  and  legislative 
functions  which  obtains  in  other  countries.  There  is  no  disposition 
to  strip  from  Parliament  its  constituent  powers;  but  the  feeling  is 
gaining  ground  that  when  fundamental  and  far-reaching  innovations  Y  ' 
are  contemplated  action  ought  not  to  be  taken  until  after  there  shall 
have  been  an  appeal  to  the  nation  through  the  medium  of  a  general 
election  at  which  the  desirability  of  the  proposed  changes  shall  be 
submitted  as  a  clear  issue.  The  principle,  broadly  stated,  is  that 
Parliament  ought  to  exercise  in  any  important  matter  its  constituent 
powers  only  under  the  sanction  of  direct  popular  mandate.  It  was 
essentially  in  deference  to  this  principle  that  the  elections  of  Decem- 
ber, 1910,  turning  squarely  upon  the  issue  of  the  reform  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  were  ordered.  Thus,  while  in  numerous  continental  coun- 
tries the  distinction  between  constituent  and  legislative  functions  is 
being  nowadays  somewhat  relaxed,  in  Great  Britain  there  is  dis- 
tinctly a  tendency  to  establish  in  a  measure  a  differentiation  in  this 
matter  which  long  has  been  in  practice  non-existent. 

In  effect,  every  measure  of  Parliament,  of  whatsoever  nature  and 
under  whatsoever  circumstances  enacted,  is  "constitutional,"  in  the 
sense  that  it  is  legally  valid  and  enforceable.  When  an  Englishman 
asserts  of  a  measure  that  it  is  unconstitutional  he  means  only  that  it  is 
inconsistent  with  a  previous  enactment,  an  established  usage,  the 
principles  of  international  law,  or  the  commonly  accepted  standards  of 
morality.  Such  a  measure,  if  passed  in  due  form  by  Parliament,  be- 
comes an  integral  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  as  such  will  be  en- 
forced by  the  courts.  There  is  no  means  by  which  it  may  be  rendered 
of  no  effect,  save  repeal  by  the  same  or  a  succeeding  parliament.  In 
England,  as  in  European  countries  generally,  the  judicial  tribunals 
are  endowed  with  no  power  to  pass  upon  the  constitutional  validity 
of  legislative  acts.  Every  such  act  is  ipso  facto  valid,  whether  it  re- 
lates to  the  most  trivial  subject  of  ordinary  legislation  or  to  the  or- 
ganic arrangements  of  the  state;  and  no  person  or  body,  aside  from 
Parliament  itself,  possesses  a  right  to  override  it  or  to  set  it  aside.1 

1  For  brief  discussions  of  the  general  nature  of  the  English  constitution  see  A.  L. 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  2  vols.  (New  York,  1909),  L,  1-15;  T.  F.  Moran, 
Theory  and  Practice  of  the  English  Government  (new  ed.,  New  York,  1908), 
Chap,  i;  J.  A.  R.  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions  (Oxford,  1910),  Chaps,  i,  2; 
J.  Macy,  The  English  Constitution  (New  York,  1897),  Chaps,  i,  9;  and  S.  Low, 
The  Governance  of  England  (London,  1904),  Chap.  i.  A  suggestive  characteriza- 
tion is  in  the  Introduction  of  W.  Bagehot,  The  English  Constitution  (new  ed., 
Boston,  1873).  A  more  extended  and  very  incisive  analysis  is  Dicey,  Introduction 
to  the  Study  of  the  Law  of  the  Constitution,  especially  the  Introduction  and 
Chaps.  1-3,  13,  14-15. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

I.  THE  CROWN:  LEGAL  STATUS  AND  PRIVILEGES 

48.  Contrasts  of  Theory  and  Fact. — The  government  of  the  United 
Kingdom  is  in  ultimate  theory  an  absolute  monarchy,  in  form  a 
limited,  constitutional  monarchy,  arid  in  fact  a  thoroughgoing^cle- 
mocracy.1  At  its  head  stands  the  sovereign,  who  is  at  the  same  time 
the  supreme  executive,  a  co-ordinate  legislative  authority  (and,  in 
theory,  much  more  than  that),  the  fountain  of  justice  and  of  honor, 
the  "supreme  governor"  of  the  Church,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the 
army  and  navy,  the  conservator  of  the  peace,  and  the  parens  patriae 
and  ex  officio  guardian  of  the  helpless  and  the  needy.  In  law,  all  land 
is  held,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  him.  Parliament  exists  only  by  his 
will.  Those  who  sit  in  it  are  summoned  by  his  writ,  and  the  privilege 
of  voting  for  a  member  of  the  lower  chamber  is  only  a  franchise,  not 
a  right  independent  of  his  grant.  Technically,  the  sovereign  never 
dies;  there  is  only  a  demise  of  the  crown,  i.  e.,  a  transfer  of  regal  author- 
ity from  one  person  to  another,  and  the  state  is  never  without  a  rec- 
ognized head. 

The  assertions  that  have  been  made  represent  with  substantial 
accuracy  the  ultimate  theory  of  the  status  of  the  crown  in  the  govern- 
mental system.  In  respect  to  the  form  and  fact  of  that  system  as  it 
actually  operates,  however,  it  would  hardly  be  possible  to  make  asser- 
tions that  would  convey  a  more  erroneous  impression.  The  breadth 
of  the  discrepancy  that  here  subsists  between  theory  and  fact  will  be 
made  apparent  as  examination  proceeds  of  the  organization  and  work- 
ings of  the  executive,  the  legislative,  and  the  judicial  departments  of 
the  government  of  the  realm.  It  is  necessary  first  of  all,  however,  to 
give  attention  to  certain  of  the  more  external  aspects  of  the  position 
which  the  monarch  occupies. 

1  From  this  essential  incongruity  of  theory,  form,  and  fact  arises  the  special 
difficulty  which  must  attend  any  attempt  to  describe  with  accuracy  and  complete- 
ness the  British  constitutional  system.  In  the  study  of  every  government  the 
divergences  of  theory  and  fact  must  be  borne  constantly  in  mind,  but  nowhere  are 
these  divergences  so  numerous,  so  far-reaching,  or  so  fundamental  as  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  Kingdom. 

48 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  49 

49.  Title  to  the  Throne:  the  Act  of  Settlement,  1701.— Since  the 
Revolution  of  1688  title  to  the  English  throne  has  been  based  solely 
upon  the  will  of  the  nation  as  expressed  in  parliamentary  enactment. 
The  statute  under  which  the  succession  is  regulated  is  the  Act  of  Settle- 
ment, passed  by  the  Tory  parliament  of  1701,  by  which  it  was  pro- 
vided that,  in  default  of  heirs  of  William  III.  and  Anne,  the  crown  and 
all  prerogatives  thereto  appertaining  should  "be,  remain,  and  con- 
tinue to  the  most  Excellent  Princess  Sophia,  and  the  heirs  of  her  body, 
being  Protestants."  1  Sophia,  a  granddaughter  of  James  I.,  was  the 
widow  of  the  Elector  of  Hanover,  and  although  in  1701  she  was  not 
first  in  the  natural  order  of  succession,  she  was  first  among  the  surviv- 
ing heirs  who  were  Protestants.  It  was  by  virtue  of  the  act  mentioned 
that,  upon  the  death  of  Anne  in  1714,  the  throne  devolved  upon  the 
son  of  the  German  Electress  (George  I.).  The  present  sovereign, 
George  V.,  is  the  eighth  of  the  Hanoverian  dynasty.  Although  it 
would  be  entirely  within  the  competence  of  Parliament  to  repeal  the 
Act  of  Settlement  and  to  vest  the  crown  in  a  member  of  some  house 
other  than  the  Hanoverian,  there  is,  of  course,  no  occasion  for  such  an 
act,  and  the  throne  may  be  expected  to  continue  to  pass  from  one 
member  of  the  present  royal  family  to  another  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  heredity  and  primogeniture.  The  rules  of  descent  are 
essentially  identical  with  those  governing  the  inheritance  of  real  prop- 
erty at  common  law.2  Regularly,  the  sovereign's  eldest  son,  the 
Prince  of  Wales,3  inherits.  If  he  be  not  alive,  the  inheritance  passes 
to  his  issue,  male  or  female.  If  there  be  none,  the  succession  devolves 
upon  the  sovereign's  second  son,  or  upon  his  issue;  and  in  default 
thereof,  upon  the  eldest  son  who  survives,  or  his  issue.  If  the  vacancy 
be  not  supplied  by  or  through,  a  son  daughters  and  their  issue  inherit 
after  a  similar  order.  No  Catholic  may  inherit,  nor  anyone  marrying 
a  Catholic;  and  by  the  Act  of  1701  it  was  stipulated  that  every  person 
who  should  attain  the  throne  "shall  join  in  communion  with  the 

1  The  text  of  the  Act  of  Settlement  is  printed  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  528-531; 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  475-479;  and  Gee  and  Hardy,  Documents 
Illustrative  of  English  Church  History,  664-670.    As  safeguards  against  dangers 
which  might  conceivably  arise  from  the  accession  of  a  foreign-born  sovereign  the 
Act  stipulated  (i)  that  no  person  who  should  thereafter  come  into  possession  of  the 
crown  should  go  outside  the  dominions  of  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland,  without 
consent  of  Parliament,  and  (2)  that  in  the  event  that  the  crown  should  devolve 
upon  any  person  not  a  native  of  England  the  nation  should  not  be  obliged  to  engage 
in  any  war  for  the  defense  of  any  dominions  or  territories  not  belonging  to  the  crown 
of  England,  without  consent  of  Parliament. 

2  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  17. 

8  This  title  was  created  by  Edward  I.  in  1301.    Its  possession  has  never  involved 
the  exercise  of  any  measure  of  political  power. 


50  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Church  of  England  as  by  law  established."  If  after  accession  the 
sovereign  should  avow  himself  a  Catholic,  or  should  marry  a  Catholic, 
his  subjects  would  be  absolved  from  their  allegiance.  It  is  required, 
furthermore,  that  the  sovereign  shall  take  at  his  coronation  an  oath 
wherein  the  tenets  of  Catholicism  are  abjured.  Until  1910  the  phrase- 
ology of  this  oath,  formulated  as  it  was  in  a  period  when  ecclesiastical 
animosities  were  still  fervid,1  was  such  as  to  be  offensive  not  only  to 
Catholics  but  to  temperate-minded  men  of  all  faiths.  By  act  of  parlia- 
ment passed  in  anticipation  of  the  coronation  of  George  V.,  the  lan- 
guage employed  in  the  oath  was  made  very  much  less  objectionable. 
The  sovereign  is  required  now  merely  to  declare  "  that  he  is  a  faithful 
Protestant  and  that  he  will,  according  to  the  true  intent  of  the  en- 
actments which  secure  the  Protestant  succession  to  the  throne  of  the 
Realm,  uphold  and  maintain  the  said  enactments  to  the  best  of  his 
power  according  to  law." 

50.  Regencies. — The  age  of  majority  of  the  sovereign  is  eighteen. 
The  constitutions  of  most  monarchical  states  contain  more  or  less 
elaborate  stipulations  respecting  the  establishment  of  a  regency  in  the 
event  of  the  sovereign's  minority  or  incapacitation.  In  Great  Britain, 
on  the  contrary,  the  practice  has  been  to  make  provision  for  each  such 
contingency  when  it  should  arise.  A  regency  can  be  created  and  a 
regent  designated  only  by  act  of  Parliament.  Parliamentary  enact- 
ments, however,  become  operative  only  upon  receiving  the  assent  of 
the  crown,  and  it  has  sometimes  happened  that  the  sovereign  for  whom 
a  regent  was  required  to  be  appointed  was  incapable  of  performing  any 
governmental  act.  In  such  a  case,  there  has  been  resort  usually  to 
some  legal  fiction  by  which  the  appearance,  at  least,  of  regularity  has 
been  preserved.  A  regency  act  regularly  defines  the  limits  of  the 
regent's  powers  and  establishes  specific  safeguards  in  respect  to  the 
interests  of  both  the  sovereign  and  the  nation.2 

61.  Royal  Privileges:  the  Civil  List. — The  sovereign  is  capable  of 
owning  land  and  other  property,  and  of  disposing  of  it  precisely  as 
may  any  private  citizen.  The  vast  accumulations  of  property,  how- 
ever, which  at  one  time  comprised  the  principal  source  of  revenue  of 
the  crown,  have  become  the  possession  of  the  state,  and  as  such  are 

1  The  words  to  be  employed  were  prescribed  originally  in  the  Act  for  Establishing 
the  Coronation  Oath,  passed  in  the  first  year  of  William  and  Mary.    For  the  text 
see  Robertson,  Select  Statutes,  Cases,  and  Documents,  65-68.    An  historical  sketch 
of  some  value  is  A.  Bailey,  The  Succession  to  the  English  Crown  (London,  1879). 

2  For  the  text  of  the  Regency  Act  of  1811,  passed  by  reason  of  the  incapacitation 
of  George  III.,  see  Robertson,  Statutes,  Cases  and  Documents,  171-182.    For  an 
excellent  survey  of  the  general  subject  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  His- 
tory of  England,  I.,  Chap.  3. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  51 

administered  entirely  under  the  direction  of  Parliament.  In  lieu  of  the 
income  derived  formerly  from  land  and  other  independent  sources  the 
sovereign  has  been  accorded  for  the  support  of  the  royal  household  a 
fixed  annual  subsidy — voted  tinder  the  designation  of  the  Civil  List — 
the  amount  of  which  is  determined  afresh  at  the  beginning  of  each 
reign.  The  Civil  List  was  instituted  by  an  act  of  1689  in  which  Parlia- 
ment settled  upon  the  king  for  the  meeting  of  personal  expenses,  the 
payment  of  civil  officers,  and  other  charges,  a  stipulated  sum,  thus 
separating  for  the  first  time  the  private  expenditures  of  the  crown  from 
the  public  outlays  of  the  nation.1  The  sum  given  William  III.  was 
£700,000.  George  III.,  in  return  for  a  fixed  Civil  List,  surrendered 
his  interest  in  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  crown,  and  William  IV. 
went  further  and,  in  return  for  a  Civil  List  of  £510,000  a  year,  sur- 
rendered not  only  the  hereditary  revenues  but  also  a  large  group  of 
miscellaneous  and  casual  sources  of  income.2  At  the  accession  of 
Queen  Victoria  the  Civil  List  was  fixed  at  £385,000.  The  amount  was 
comparatively  small,  but  opportunity  was  taken  at  the  time  finally  to 
transfer  to  Parliament  the  making  of  provision  for  all  charges  properly 
incident  to  the  maintenance  of  the  state.  In  addition  to  various 
annuities  payable  to  the  children  of  the  royal  family,  the  Civil  List 
of  Edward  VII.,  established  by  Act  of  July  2,  1901,  amounted  to 
£470,000,  of  which  £110,000  was  appropriated  to  the  privy  purse  of 
the  king  and  queen,  £125,000  to  salaries  and  retiring  allowances  of  the 
royal  household,  and  £193,000  to  household  expenses.  At  the  acces- 
sion of  George  V.,  in  1910,  the  Civil  List  was  continued  in  the  sum 
of  £470,000. 3 

The  sovereign  enjoys  unrestricted  immunity  from  political  respon- 
sibility and  from  personal  distraint.  The  theory  of  the  law  has  long 
been  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong,  which  means  that  for  his  public 
acts  the  sovereign's  ministers  must  bear  complete  responsibility  and 
for  his  private  conduct  he  may  not  be  called  to  account  in  any  court 
of  law  or  by  any  legal  process.  He  cannot  be  arrested,  his  goods  cannot 
be  distrained,  and  as  long  as  a  palace  remains  a  royal  residence  no 

1  Under  Charles  II.  Parliament  began  to  appropriate  portions  of  the  revenue  for 
specific  purposes,  and  after  1688  this  became  the  general  practice.    Throughout  a 
century  the  proceeds  of  particular  taxes  were  appropriated  for  particular  ends.    But 
in  1787  Pitt  simplified  the  procedure  involved  by  creating  a  single  Consolidated 
Fund  into  which  all  revenues  were  turned  and  from  which  all  expenditures  were  met. 

2  Accuracy  requires  mention  of  the  fact  that,  by  exception,  the  crown  still  enjoys 
the  revenues  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  and  the  Duchy  of  Cornwall,  the  latter  being 
part  of  the  appanage  of  the  Prince  of  Wales. 

*  On  the  history  of  the  Civil  List  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  I.,  152-175. 


52  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

sort  of  judicial  proceeding  can  be  executed  in  it.  Strictly,  the  revenues 
are  the  king's,  whence  it  arises  that  the  king  is  himself  exempt  from 
taxation,  though  lands  purchased  by  the  privy  purse  are  taxed.  And 
chere  are  numerous  minor  privileges,  such  as  the  use  of  special  liveries 
and  a  right  to  the  royal  salute,  to  which  the  sovereign,  as  such,  is  reg- 
ularly entitled. 

II.  THE  POWERS  OF  THE  CROWN 

52.  Sources:  the  Prerogative. — Vested  in  the  crown  is,  in  the  last 
analysis,  an  enormous  measure  of  authority.  The  sum  total  of  powers, 
whether  or  not  actually  exercised  by  the  sovereign  immediately,  is  of 
two-fold  origin.  There  are  powers,  in  the  first  place,  which  have  been 
defined,  or  conferred  outright,  by  parliamentary  enactment.  Others 
there  are,  however — more  numerous  and  more  important — which 
rest  upon  the  simple  basis  of  custom  or  the  Common  Law.  Those 
powers  which  belong  to  the  statutory  group  are,  as  a  rule,  specific  and 
easily  ascertainable.  But  those  which  comprise  the  ancient  customary 
rights  of  the  crown,  i.  e.,  the  prerogative,  are  not  always  possible  of 
exact  delimitation.  The  prerogative  is  defined  by  Dicey  as  "  the  res- 
idue of  discretionary  or  arbitrary  authority  which  at  any  time  is 
legally  left  in  the  hands  of  the  crown."  1  The  elements  of  it  are  to 
be  ascertained,  not  from  statutes  but  from  precedents,  and  the  sources 
of  it,  as  enumerated  by  Anson,  are  (i)  the  residue  of  the  executive 
power  which  the  king  in  the  early  stages  of  English  history  possessed 
in  all  of  the  branches  of  government;  (2)  survivals  of  the  power  once 
accruing  to  the  king  as  the  feudal  chief  of  the  country;  and  (3)  attri- 
butes with  which  the  crown  has  been  invested  by  legal  theory, e.g.,  the 
attribute  of  perpetuity  popularly  expressed  in  the  aphorism  "  the  king 
never  dies,"  and  that  of  perfection  of  judgment,  similarly  expressed 
in  the  saying  "the  king  can  do  no  wrong."  2  The  most  considerable 
element  in  the  prerogative  is  that  which  Anson  first  mentions,  i.  e., 
the  power  which  the  king  has  carried  over,  in  the  teeth  of  the  populari- 
zation of  the  governmental  system,  from  days  when  the  royal  authority 
was  not  hedged  about  as  since  the  seventeenth  century  it  has  been. 
It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  royal 
powers  as  they  exist  to-day  represent  original  prerogative  worked  over 
and  delimited  by  parliamentary  enactment,  so  that  in  many  instances 
it  becomes  difficult  to  determine  whether  a  given  power  exists  by 
virtue  of  a  statute,  by  which  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  absolutely  defined, 

1  Law  of  the  Constitution  (yth  ed.),  420. 

2  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  I.,  3-5. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  53 

or  by  virtue  of  an  anterior  prerogative  which  may  be  capable  of  being 
stretched  or  interpreted  more  or  less  arbitrarily.  Nominally,  the 
sovereign  still  holds  by  divine  right.  At  the  head  of  every  public 
writ  to-day  stand  the  words  "  George  V.,  by  the  Grace  of  God  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  King."  But  no  principle  of  the  working  constitu- 
tion is  more  clearly  established  than  that  in  accordance  with  which  the 
prerogatives  of  the  crown  may  be  defined,  restricted,  or  extended  by 
the  supreme  legislative  power.  Among  prerogatives  once  claimed  and 
exercised,  but  long  since  rendered  obsolete  by  prohibitive  legislation 
may  be  mentioned  those  of  imposing  taxes  without  parliamentary 
consent,  suspending  or  dispensing  with  laws,  erecting  tribunals  not 
proceeding  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  justice,  declaring  for- 
feit the  property  of  convicted  traitors,1  purveyance,  pre-emption,  and 
the  alienation  of  crown  lands  at  pleasure. 

63.  Powers,  Theoretical  and  Actual. — It  is  not,  however,  the  origin 
of  the  royal  power,  but  rather  the  manner  of  its  exercise,  that  fixes 
the  essential  character  of  monarchy  in  Great  Britain  to-day.  The 
student  of  this  phase  of  the  subject  is  confronted  at  the  outset  with  a 
paradox  which  has  found  convenient  expression  in  the  aphorism  that  ' 
the  king  reigns  but  does  not  govern.  The  meaning  of  the  aphorism  is 
that,  while  the  sovereign  is  possessed  of  all  of  the  inherent  dignity  of 
royalty,  it  is  left  to  him  actually  to  exercise  in  but  a  very  restricted 
measure  the  powers  which  are  involved  in  the  business  of  government. 
Technically,  all  laws  are  made  by  the  crown  in  parliament;  all  judicial 
decisions  are  rendered  by  the  crown  through  the  courts;  all  laws  are 
executed  and  all  administrative  acts  are  performed  by  the  crown. 
But  in  point  of  fact  laws  are  enacted  by  Parliament  independently; 
verdicts  are  brought  in  by  tribunals  whose  immunity  from  royal 
domination  is  thoroughly  assured;  and  the  executive  functions  of  the 
state  are  exercised  all  but  exclusively  by  the  ministers  and  their  sub- 
ordinates. One  who  would  understand  what  English  monarchy  really 
is  must  take  account  continually  both  of  what  the  king  does  and  may 
do  theoretically  and  of  what  he  does  and  may  do  in  actual  prac- 
tice. The  matter  is  complicated  further  by  the  fact  that  powers  once 
possessed  have  been  lost,  that  others  which  have  never  been  formally 
relinquished  have  so  long  lain  unused  that  the  question  may  fairly  be 
debated  whether  they  still  exist,  and  that  there  never  has  been,  nor 
is  likely  ever  to  be,  an  attempt  to  enumerate  categorically  or  to 
define  comprehensively  the  range  of  powers,  either  theoretical  or 
actual. 

54.  Executive  Powers.— Disregarding  for  the  moment  the  means 
1  Abolished  by  the  Felony  Act  of  1870. 


54  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

their  actual  exercise,  the  powers  of  the  crown  to-day  may  be  said  to 
fall  into  two  principal  groups.  The  first  comprises  those  which  are 
essentially  executive  hi  character;  the  second,  those  which  are  shared 
with  the  two  houses  of  Parliament,  being,  therefore  chiefly  legislative. 
The  first  group  is  distinctly  the  more  important.  It  includes:  (i)  the 
appointment,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  all  national  public  officers,  ex- 
cept some  of  the  officials  of  the  parliamentary  chambers  and  a  few 
unimportant  hereditary  dignitaries;  (2)  the  removal,  upon  occasion, 
of  all  appointed  officers  except  judges,  members  of  the  Council  of 
India,  and  the  Comptroller  and  Auditor  General ;  (3)  the  execution  of 
all  laws  and  the  supervision  of  the  executive  machinery  of  the  state 
throughout  all  its  branches;  (4)  the  expenditure  of  public  money  in 
accordance  with  appropriations  voted  by  Parliament;  (5)  the  pardon- 
ing of  offenders  against  the  criminal  law,  with  some  exceptions,  either 
before  or  after  conviction; l  (6)  the  granting,  in  so  far  as  not  pro- 
hibited by  statute,  of  charters  of  incorporation;  (7)  the  creating  of 
all  peers  and  the  conferring  of  all  titles  and  honors;  (8)  the  coining 
of  all  money;  (9)  the  summoning  of  Convocation  and,  by  reason  of  the 
headship  of  the  Established  Church,  the  virtual  appointment  of  the 
archbishops,  bishops,  and  most  of  the  deans  and  canons;  (10)  the 
supreme  command  of  the  army  and  navy,  involving  the  raising  and 
control  of  the  armed  forces  of  the  nation,  subject  to  such  conditions 
only  as  Parliament  may  impose;  (n)  the  representing  of  the  nation  in 
all  of  its  dealings  with  foreign  powers,  including  the  appointment  of 
all  diplomatic  and  consular  agents  and  the  negotiation  and  con- 
clusion of  peace;  and  (12)  the  exercise,  largely  under  statutory  au- 
thority conferred  within  the  past  half -century,  of  supervision  or 
control  in  respect  to  local  government,  education,  public  health, 
pauperism,  housing,  and  a  wide  variety  of  other  social  and  industrial 
interests. 

65.  The  Composition  of  the  Executive. — The  executive  branch  of 
the  government,  through  whose  agency  these  powers  are  exercised, 
consists  of  the  sovereign,  the  ministry,  and  the  entire  hierarchy  of 
administrative  officials  reaching  downwards  from  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments and  the  under-secretaries  at  London  through  the  several  grades 
of  clerks  to  the  least  important  revenue  and  postal  employees.  There 
are  various  points  of  view  from  which  the  chief  of  the  executive  may  be 
conceived  of  as  the  sovereign,  the  prime  minister,  the  ministry  collec- 
tively, or  the  king  and  ministry  conjointly.  So  far  as  executive  func- 

1  This  power,  in  practice,  is  seldom  exercised.  The  Act  of  Settlement  prescribed 
that  "  no  pardon  shall  be  pleadable  to  an  impeachment  by  the  Commons  in  parlia- 
ment." 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  55 

tions  go,  the  sovereign,  in  law,  is  very  nearly  as  supreme  as  in  the 
days  of  personal  and  absolute  monarchy.  The  ministers  are  but  his 
advisers,  the  local  administrative  authorities  his  agents.  The  govern- 
ment is  conducted  wholly  in  his  name.  In  practice,  however,  su- 
preme executive  acts  of  the  kinds  that  have  been  mentioned  are  per- 
formed by  the  ministers;  or,  if  performed  by  the  crown  immediately, 
will  not  be  undertaken  without  the  ministers'  knowledge  and  assent. 
The  ministers,  and  not  the  sovereign,  may  be  held  to  account  by  parlia^ 
ment  for  every  executive  act  performed,  and  it  is  but  logical  that  they 
should  control  the  time  and  tenor  of  such  acts.  It  falls  very  generally 
to  the  prime  minister  to  speak  for  and  otherwise  represent  the 
ministerial  group.  On  the  whole,  however,  it  accords  best  with 
both  law  and  fact  to  consider  the  executive  under  the  working  con- 
stitution as  consisting  of  the  crown  as  represented  and  advised  by 
the  ministry. 

56.  The  Crown  and  Legislation. — The  second  general  group  of 
powers  lodged  in  the  crown  comprises  those  which  relate  to  legislation. 
Technically,  all  legislative  authority  is  vested  hi  "the  king  in  parlia- 
ment," by  which  is  meant  the  king  acting  in  collaboration  with  the 
two  houses.  Parliament  transacts  business  only  during  the  pleasure 
of  the  crown.  The  crown  summons  and  prorogues  the  houses,  and  it 
is  empowered  at  any  time  to  dissolve  the  House  of  Commons.  No 
parliamentary  act,  furthermore,  is  valid  without  the  crown's  assent. 
It  is  on  the  legislative,  rather  than  the  executive  side,  none  the  less, 
that  the  crown  has  lost  most  heavily  in  actual  authority.  There  was  a 
time  when  the  crown  possessed  inherent  law-making  power  and 
through  the  agency  of  proclamations  and  ordinances  contributed  in- 
dependently to  the  body  of  enforceable  law.  To-day  the  sovereign  may 
exercise  no  such  power,  save  alone  in  the  crown  colonies.  It  is  true 
that  ordinances  with  the  force  of  law  are  still  issued,  and  that  their 
number  and  importance  tend  steadily  to  be  increased.  But  in  all 
cases  these  ordinances  have  been,  and  must  be,  authorized  specifically 
by  statute.  As  "statutory  orders"  they  emanate  from  a  delegated 
authority  purely  and  bear  no  relation  to  the  ancient  ordinance  by 
prerogative.  The  king  may  not  even,  by  virtue  of  any  inherent  power, 
promulgate  ordinances  in  completion  of  parliamentary  statutes — the 
sort  of  thing  which  the  French  president,  the  Italian  king,  and  virtually 
every  continental  ruler  may  do  with  full  propriety.  Of  his  own  author- 
ity, furthermore,  the  sovereign  may  not  alter  by  one  jot  or  tittle  the 
law  of  the  land.  There  was  a  time  when  the  crown  claimed  and  ex- 
ercised the  right  to  suspend,  or  to  dispense  with,  laws  which  had  been 
duly  enacted  and  put  in  operation.  But  this  practice  was  forbidden 


56  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

definitely  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  no  sovereign  since  the  last  Stuart 
has  sought  to  revive  the  prerogative.  Still  another  aspect  of  the 
ancient  participation  by  the  king  in  the  legislative  function  was  the 
influencing  of  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Commons  through  the 
right  to  confer  upon  boroughs  the  privilege  of  electing  members.  This 
right,  never  expressly  withdrawn,  is  regarded  now  as  having  been  for- 
feited by  disuse.  Finally,  the  power  to  withhold  assent  from  a  meas- 
ure passed  in  Parliament  has  not  been  exercised  since  the  days  of 
Queen  Anne,1  and  while  legally  it  still  exists,  it  is  conceded  for  all 
practical  purposes  to  have  been  extinguished. 

67.  Principles  Governing  the  Actual  Exercise  of  Powers. — After 
full  allowances  have  been  made,  the  powers  of  the  British  crown  to-day 
comprise  a  sum  total  of  striking  magnitude.  "All  told,"  says  Lowell, 
"the  executive  authority  of  the  crown  is,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  very 
wide,  far  wider  than  that  of  the  chief  magistrate  in  many  countries, 
and  well-nigh  as  extensive  as  that  now  possessed  by  the  monarch  in 
any  government  not  an  absolute  despotism;  and  although  the  crown 
has  no  inherent  legislative  power  except  in  conjunction  with  Parlia- 
ment, it  has  been  given  by  statute  very  large  powers  of  subordinate 
legislation.  .  .  .  Since  the  accession  of  the  House  of  Hanover  the 
new  powers  conferred  upon  the  crown  by  statute  have  probably  more 
than  made  up  for  the  loss  to  the  prerogative  of  powers  which  have 
either  been  restricted  by  the  same  process  or  become  obsolete  by 
disuse.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  prerogative,  as  it  existed  at 
that  tune,  has  remained  legally  vested  in  the  crown,  and  can  be  ex- 
ercised to-day."  2 

The  next  fundamental  thing  to  be  observed  is  that  the  extended 
powers  here  referred  to  are  exercised,  not  by  the  king  in  person,  but 
by  ministers  with  whose  choosing  the  sovereign  has  but  little  to  do 
and  over  whose  acts  he  has  only  an  incidental  and  extra-legal  control. 
Underlying  the  entire  constitutional  order  are  two  principles  whose 
operation  would  seem  to  reduce  the  sovereign  to  a  sheer  nonentity. 
The  first  is  that  the  crown  shall  perform  no  important  governmental 
act  whatsoever  save  through  the  agency  of  the  ministers.  The  second 
is  that  these  ministers  shall  be  responsible  absolutely  to  Parliament  for 
every  public  act  which  they  perform.  From  these  principles  arises 
the  fiction  that  "the  king  can  do  no  wrong,"  which  means  legally 
that  the  sovereign  cannot  be  adjudged  guilty  of  wrongdoing  (and  that 
therefore  no  proceedings  may  be  instituted  against  him),  and  politically 

1  In  1707,  when  the  Queen  refused  her  assent  to  a  bill  for  settling  the  militia  in 
Scotland. 

2  Government  of  England,  L,  23,  26. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  57 

that  the  ministers  are  responsible,  singly  in  small  affairs  and  con- 
jointly in  more  weighty  ones,  for  everything  that  is  done  in  the  crown's 
name.  "In  a  constitutional  point  of  view,"  writes  an  English  author- 
ity, "so  universal  is  the  operation  of  this  rule  that  there  is  not  a  mo- 
ment in  the  king's  life,  from  his  accession  to  his  demise,  during  which 
there  is  not  some  one  responsible  to  Parliament  for  his  public  conduct; 
and  there  can  be  no  exercise  of  the  crown's  authority  for  which  it 
must  not  find  some  minister  willing  to  make  himself  responsible."  * 
In  continental  countries  the  responsibility  of  ministers  is  established 
very  commonly  by  specific  and  written  constitutional  provision.  In 
Great  Britain  it  exists  by  virtue  simply  of  a  group  of  unwritten  prin- 
ciples, or  conventions,  of  the  constitution;  but  it  is  there  none  the 
less  real.  In  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  the  ministry  must  conform 
to  the  will  of  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons;  otherwise  the 
wheels  of  government  would  be  blocked.  And  from  this  it  follows 
that  the  crown  is  obliged  to  accept,  with  such  grace  as  may  be,  the 
measures  which  the  ministry,  working  with  the  parliamentary  majority, 
formulates  and  for  which  it  stands  ready  to  shoulder  responsibility. 
It  is  open  to  the  king,  of  course,  to  dissuade  the  ministers  from  a  given 
course  of  action.  But  if  they  cannot  be  turned  back,  and  if  they  have 
the  support  of  a  parliamentary  majority,  there  is  nothing  that  the 
sovereign  can  do  save  acquiesce. 

58.  Appointment  of  Ministers. — In  the  naming  of  a  new  premier, 
following  the  retirement  of  a  ministry,  the  king  is  legally  unhampered; 
but  here  again  in  practice  he  is  bound  to  designate  the  recognized 
leader  of  the  dominant  party,  and  so  to  pursue  a  course  in  which  there 
is  left  no  room  for  the  exercise  of  discretion.  Only  when  there  is  no 
clearly  recognized  leader,  or  when  circumstances  compel  the  formation 
of  a  coalition  ministry,  is  there  a  real  opportunity  for  the  sovereign  to 
choose  a  premier  from  a  number  of  more  or  less  available  men.2  In 
the  appointment  of  the  remaining  ministers,  and  of  all  persons  whose 
offices  are  regarded  as  political,  the  crown  yields  uniformly  to  the 
judgment  of  the  premier.  The  King's  Speech,  on  the  opening  of  Parlia- 
ment, is  written  by  the  ministers;  all  public  communications  of  the 
crown  pass  through  their  hands;  peers  are  created  and  honors  bestowed 
in  accord  with  their  advice;  measures  are  framed  and  executive  acts 
are  undertaken  by  them,  sometimes  without  the  sovereign's  knowledge 
and  occasionally  even  contrary  to  his  wishes. 

1  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in  England,  I.,  81. 

2  This  sort  of  situation  presented  itself  several  times  during  the  reign  of  Queen 
Victoria,  but  in  general  it  is  exceptional. 


58  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


III.  THE  IMPORTANCE  AND  STRENGTH  OF  THE  MONARCHY 

69.  The  Real  Authority  and  Service  of  the  Crown. — It  would  be  an 
error,  however,  to  conclude  that  kingship  in  England  is  unimportant, 
or  even  that  the  power  wielded  in  person  by  the  crown  is  negligible. 
On  the  contrary,  the  uses  served  by  the  crown  are  indisputable  and  the 
influence  exerted  upon  the  course  of  public  affairs  may  be  decisive. 
The  sovereign,  in  the  words  of  Bagehot,  has  three  rights— the  right  t£, 
be  consulte^  the  ripftt  t.n  enrnnrflpe.  and  the  JJfiht  to  warri.  "  A  king 
of  great  sense  and  sagacity,"  it  is  added,  "would  want  no  others."  1 
Despite  the  fact  that  during  upwards  of  two  hundred  years  the  sov- 
ereign has  not  attended  the  meetings  of  the  cabinet,  and  so  is  deprived 
of  the  opportunity  of  wielding  influence  directly  upon  the  deliberations 
of  the  ministers  as  a  body,  the  king  keeps  in  close  touch  with  the  pre- 
mier, and  cabinet  councils  at  which  important  lines  of  policy  are  to  be 
formulated  are  preceded  not  infrequently  by  a  conference  in  which  the 
subject  in  hand  is  threshed  out  more  or  less  completely  by  king  and 
chief  minister.  Merely  because  the  ancient  relation  has  been  reversed, 
so  that  now  it  is  the  king  who  advises  and  the  ministry  that  arrives 
at  decisions,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  advisory  function  is  an  unim- 
portant thing.  Queen  Victoria  many  times  wielded  influence  of  a 
decisive  nature  upon  the  public  measures  of  her  reign,  especially  in 
respect  to  the  conduct  of  foreign  relations.  The  extent  of  such  influ- 
ence cannot  be  made  a  matter  of  record,  because  the  ministers  are  in 
effect  bound  not  to  publish  the  fact  that  a  decision  upon  a  matter  of 
state  has  been  taken  at  the  sovereign's  instance.  It  is  familiarly 
known,  however — to  cite  a  recent  illustration — that  Edward  VII. 
approved  and  encouraged  the  Haldane  army  reforms,  that  he  sought 
to  dissuade  the  House  of  Lords  from  the  rejection  of  the  Lloyd-George 
budget  of  1909,  and  that  he  discouraged  the  raising,  in  any  form,  of 
the  issue  of  the  reconstitution  of  the  upper  chamber.  In  other  words 
while,  as  a  constitutional  monarch  content  to  remain  in  the  back- 
ground of  political  controversy,  the  late  king  not  only  had  opinions  but 
did  not  hesitate  to  make  them  known;  and  in  the  shaping  and  execu- 
tion of  the  Liberal  programme  his  advice  was  at  times  a  factor  of  im- 
portance.2 

1  The  English  Constitution  (rev.  ed.),  143. 

2  The  most  satisfactory  estimate  of  the  political  and  governmental  activities  of 
Edward  VII.  is  contained  in  Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  memoir  of  the  king,  printed  in  -the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  Second  Supplement  (London  and  New  York, 
1912),  L,  546-610. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  59 

60.  Why  Monarchy  Survives. — Monarchy  in  Great  Britain  is  a 
solid  and,  so  far  as  can  be  foreseen,  a  lasting  reality.  Throughout  the 
tempestuous  years  1909-1911,  when  the  nation  was  aroused  as  it  had 
not  been  in  generations  upon  the  issue  of  constitutional  reform,  and 
when  every  sort  of  project  was  being  warmly  advocated  and  as  warmly 
opposed,  without  exception  every  suggested  programme  took  for 
granted  the  perpetuation  of  the  monarchy  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
governmental  system.  In  the  general  bombardment  to  which  the 
hereditary  House  of  Lords  was  subjected  hereditary  kingship  wholly 
escaped.  The  reasons  are  numerous  and  complex.  They  arise  in 
part,  though  by  no  means  so  largely  as  is  sometimes  imagined,  from  the 
fact  that  monarchy  in  England  is  a  venerable  institution  and  the  innate 
conservatism  of  the  Englishman,  while  permitting  him  from  time  to 
time  to  regulate  and  modify  it,  restrains  him  from  doing  anything  so 
revolutionary  as  to  abolish  it.  That  upon  certain  conspicuous  oc- 
casions, as  in  the  Cromwellian  period,  and  again  in  1688,  kingship  has 
owed  its  very  life  to  the  conservative  instinct  of  the  English  people 
is  well  enough  known  to  every  student  of  history.  But  to-day,  as  ever, 
the  institution  rests  upon  a  basis  very  much  more  substantial  than  a 
mere  national  predilection.  Monarchy  remains  impregnably  en- 
trenched because  the  crown,  in  addition  to  comprising  an  accustomed 
feature  of  the  governmental  economy,  fulfills  specific  ends  which  are 
recognized  universally  to  be  eminently  worth  while,  if  not  indispensa- 
ble. As  a  social,  moral,  and  ceremonial  agency,  and  as  a  visible  symbol 
of  the  unity  of  the  nation,  king  and  court  occupy  an  immeasurable 
place  in  the  life  and  thought  of  the  people;  and  even  within  the  domain 
of  government,  to  employ  the  figure  of  Lowell,  if  the  crown  is  no  longer 
the  motive  power  of  the  ship  of  state,  it  is  the  spar  on  which  the  sail  is 
bent,  and  as  such  it  is  not  only  a  useful  but  an  essential  part  of  the 
vessel.1  The  entire  governmental  order  of  Great  Britain  hinges  upon 
the  parliamentary  system,  and  nowhere  has  that  system  been  reduced 
to  satisfactory  operation  without  the  presence  of  some  central,  but 
essentially  detached,  figure,  whether  a  king  or,  as  in  France,  a  president 
with  the  attributes  of  kingship.  It  is  fundamentally  because  the 
English  people  have  discerned  that  kingship  is  not  necessarily  incom- 
patible with  popular  government  that  the  monarchy  has  persisted. 
If  royalty  had  been  felt  to  stand  inevitably  in  the  path  of  democratic 
progress,  it  is  inconceivable  that  all  the  forces  of  tradition  could  have 
pulled  it  through  the  past  seventy-five  or  eighty  years.  As  it  is,  while 
half  a  century  ago  there  was  in  the  country  a  small  republican  group 
which  was  fond  of  urging  that  the  monarchy  was  but  a  source  of 
1  Government  of  England,  L,  49. 


60  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

needless  expense,  to-day  there  is  hardly  a  vestige,  in  any  grade  of 
society,  of  anti-monarchical  sentiment.1 

IV.  PRIVY  COUNCIL,  MINISTRY,  AND  CABINET 

61.  The  Privy  Council. — One  who  would  understand  the  modes  by 
which  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  in  practice  exercised  must  begin  by 
fixing  firmly  in  mind  the  nature  and  relations  of  three  distinct  but 
closely  interrelated  institutions,  the  Privy  Council,  the  ministry,  and 
the  cabine^  As  has  appeared,  the  ?rwy""Council  through  a  long 
period  of  English  history  comprised  the  body  of  men  who  advised  the 
crown  and  assisted  to  some  extent  in  the  supervision  of  administration, 
he  number  of  councillors  from  time  to  time  varied  widely,  but  it 
t  tended  constantly  to  be  too  large  to  admit  of  the  requisite  despatch 
and  secrecy,  and  by  reason  principally  of  this  consideration  the  crown 
fell  into  the  custom  of  selecting  as  advisers  a  group  of  persons  less 
numerous,  and  perhaps  more  trustworthy,  than  the  whole  body  of 
public  functionaries  collectively  designated  as  the  Privy  Council. 
Thus  arose  the  cabinet,  which  throughout  its  entire  history  has  been 
only  an  inner  circle,  unknown  to  the  law,  of  the  older  and  larger  body. 
The  Privy  Council  survives  to-day,  and  in  both  law  and  theory  it  still 
is  the  advisory  body  of  the  crown.  A  cabinet  member  possesses  author- 
ity and  is  known  to  the  law  only  as  a  privy  councillor.  In  point  of 
fact,  however,  the  Privy  Council,  once  highly  influential  in  affairs  of 
state,  is  now,  as  such,  all  but  powerless.  Such  portions  of  the  dignity 
of  its  ancient  place  in  the  constitution  as  remain  to  it  are  of  a  purely 
formal  and  ceremonial  nature.  It  holds  no  meetings  of  a  deliberative 
character,  and  although  legally  its  action  is  still  essential  to  many 
public  measures,  as  the  preparation  of  proclamations  and  of  orders  in 
council,  this  action  may  be  taken  by  as  few  as  three  persons.2  All 
cabinet  members  are  members  of  the  Council,  so  that  even  one-fifth  or 
one-sixth  of  the  cabinet  group  is  competent  to  meet  every  legal  re- 

xThe  best  brief  discussions  of  the  position  of  the  crown  in  the  governmental 
system  are  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap,  i ;  Moran,  English  Govern- 
ment, Chaps.  2-3;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap.  3;  Macy,  English 
Constitution,  Chap.  5;  and  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chaps.  14-15.  More 
extended  treatment  of  the  subject  will  be  found  in  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the 
Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  i,  Chaps  i  and  4;  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government  in  Eng- 
land, I.,  Pt.  2;  Bagehot,  English  Constitution,  Chaps.  2-3;  H.  D.  Traill,  Central 
Government,  Chap.  i.  Mention  may  be  made  of  N.  Caudel,  Le  souverain  anglais, 
in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July,  1910,  and  J.  Bardoux,  Le  pouvoir  politique 
de  la  couronne  anglaise,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  May  15,  1911. 

2  On  the  nature  of  orders  in  council  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Consti- 
tution, II.,  Pt.  i,  147-149. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  6 1 

quirement  imposed  upon  the  Council  as  a  whole.1  All  councillors  are 
appointed  by  the  crown  and  continue  in  office  for  life  or  until  dis- 
missed. Their  number  is  unlimited,  and  the  only  qualification  neces- 
sary for  appointment  is  British  nativity.  Members  fall  into  three 
groups:  (i)  members  of  the  cabinet;  (2)  holders  of  certain  important 
non-political  offices  who  by  custom  are  entitled  to  appointment;  (3) 
persons  eminent  in  politics,  literature,  law,  or  science,  or  by  reason  of 
service  rendered  the  crown,  upon  whom  the  dignity  is  conferred  as  an 
honorary  distinction.  Members  bear  regularly  the  title  of  Right 
Honorable.  The  President  of  the  Council,  designated  by  the  crown, 
takes  rank  in  the  House  of  Lords  next  after  the  Chancellor  and 
Treasurer.2 

62.  Ministry  and  Cabinet.. — Another  governmental  group  which, 
like  the  Privy  Council,  differs  from  the  cabinet  while  containing  it, 
is  the  ministry.  The  ministry  comprises  a  large  and  variable  body  of 
functionaries,  some  of  whom  occupy  the  principal  offices  of  state  and 
divide  their  efforts  between  advising  the  crown,  i.  e.,  formulating 
governmental  policy,  and  administering  the  affairs  of  their  respective 
departments,  and  others  of  whom,  occupying  less  important  executive 
positions,  do  not  possess,  save  indirectly,  the  advisory  function.  The 
first  group  comprises,  approximately  at  least,  the  cabinet.  Most 
heads  of  departments  are  regularly  and  necessarily  in  the  cabinet. 
A  few  are  in  it  as  a  rule,  though  not  invariably.  A  few,  still  less  im- 
portant, may  be,  but  are  not  likely  to  be,  admitted  to  it.  And,  finally, 
a  large  number  of  parliamentary  under-secretaries,  party  "whips," 
and  officers  of  the  royal  household  are  certain  not  to  be  admitted.3 

V.  THE  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENTS 

In  respect  to  both  origin  and  legal  status  the  executive  departments 
of  the  central  government  of  Great  Britain  exhibit  little  of  the  con- 
formity to  type  which  characterizes  their  counterparts  in  the  logical 
and  self-consistent  governmental  systems  of  the  majority  of  con- 

1  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  despite  the  transfer  of  the  business  devolv- 
ing formerly  upon  the  Council  into  the  hands  of  the  specially  constituted  depart- 
ments of  government,  the  Council  does  still,  through  the  agency  of  its  committees, 
perform  a  modicum  of  actual  service.    Of  principal  importance  among  the  com- 
mittees is  the  Judicial  Committee,  which  hears  appeals  in  ecclesiastical  cases  and 
renders  final  verdict  in  all  appeals  coming  from  tribunals  outside  the  United  King- 
dom.   See  p.  173. 

2  Traill,  Central  Government,  Chap.  12. 

3  On  the  relations  of  cabinet  and  ministry  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I., 
Chap.  3. 


62  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

tinental  countries.  Under  the  pressure,  however,  of  custom  and  of 
parliamentary  control,  they  have  been  reduced  to  essentially  a  common 
style  of  organization  and  a  common  mode  of  administrative  procedure. 
In  virtually  every  instance  the  department  is  presided  over  by  a  single 
responsible  minister,  assisted  as  a  rule  by  one  or  more  parliamentary 
under-secretaries  and,  more  remotely,  by  a  greater  or  lesser  body  of 
non-political  officials  who  carry  on  the  actual  work  of  the  department 
and  whose  tenure  is  not  affected  by  the  political  fortunes  of  their 
chiefs. 

63.  The    Treasury. — Among    the    numerous    departments,    some 
represent  survivals  of  great  offices  of  state  of  an  earlier  period,  some  are 
offshoots  of  the  ancient  secretariat,  and  some  comprise  boards  and 
commissions  established  in  days  comparatively  recent.    In  the  first 
group  fall  the  offices  of  the  Lord  High  Treasurer,  the  Lord  High  Chan- 
cellor, and  the  Lord  High  Admiral.    From  the  early  sixteenth  century 
to  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  the  principal  official  of  the  Treasury  was 

,e  Lord  High  Treasurer.  Since  1714,  however,  the  office  has  been 
•egularly  in  commission.  The  duties  connected  with  it  have  been 
intrusted  to  a  board  composed  of  certain  Lords  of  the  Treasury,  and 
no  individual  to-day  bears  the  Lord  High  Treasurer's  title.  When  a 
ministry  is  made  up  tfie  group  of  Treasury  Lords  is  renewed,  and  as  a 
rule  the  post  of  First  Lord  is  assumed  by  the  premier.  In  point  of 
fact,  however,  the  board  is  never  called  together,  some  of  its  members 
have  no  actual  connection  whatsoever  with  the  Treasury,  and  the 
functions  of  this  most  important  of  all  departments  are  in  practice 
exercised  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  assisted  by  the  Junior 
Lords  and  the  under-secretaries.  The  Exchequer,  i.  e.,  the  depart- 
ment concerned  principally  with  the  collection  of  the  taxes,  is  in  fact, 
though  not  in  name,  a  branch  of  the  Treasury  Board.  Within  the 
Treasury,  and  immediately  under  the  direction  of  the  Chancellor,  is 
drawn  up  the  annual  budget,  embodying  a  statement  of  the  con- 
templated expenditures  of  the  year  and  a  programme  of  taxation 
calculated  to  produce  the  requisite  revenue.  The  Treasury  exercises 
general  control  over  all  other  departments  of  the  public  service,  e.  g., 
the  Post-office  and  the  Board  of  Customs,  in  which  public  money  is 
collected  or  expended.1 

64.  The   Admiralty  Board   and  the  Lord  High  Chancellorship. — 
A  second  of  the  ancient  offices  of  state  which  survives  only  in  commis- 

1  On  the  organization  and  workings  of  the  Treasury  see  Lowell,  Government  of 
England,  I.,  Chap.  5;  Dicey,  Law  of  the  Constitution,  Chap.  10;  Anson,  Law  and 
Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  I,  173-190;  Traill,  Central  Government, 
Chap.  3. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  63 

sion  is  that  of  the  Lord  High  Admiral.  The  functions  of  this  important 
post  devolve  to-day  upon  an  Admiralty  Board,  consisting  strictly  of  a 
First  Lord,  four  Naval  Lords  (naval  experts,  usually  of  high  rank), 
and  a  Civil  Lord,  with  whom,  however,  sit  a  number  of  parliamentary 
and  permanent  secretaries.  The  First  Lord  is  invariably  a  member  of 
the  cabinet,  and  while  legally  the  status  of  the  six  Lords  is  identical, 
in  practice  the  position  of  the  First  Lord  approximates  closely  that  of 
the  minister  of  marine  in  continental  countries.  Unlike  the  Treasury 
Lords,  the  Lords  of  the  Admiralty  actually  meet,  and  transact  business. 

The  third  of  the  executive  offices  which  comprise  survivals  from 
early  times  is  that  of  the  Lord  High  Chancellor.  There  is  in  Great 
Britain  no  single  official  who  fills  even  approximately  the  position 
occupied  elsewhere  by  a  minister  of  justice  or  an  attorney-general,  but 
the  most  important  of  several  officers  who  supply  the  lack  is  the 
Chancellor.  "The  greatest  dignitary,"  says  Lowell,  "in  the  British 
government,  the  one  endowed  by  law  with  the  most  exalted  and  most 
diverse  functions,  the  only  great  officer  of  state  who  has  retained  his 
ancient  rights,  the  man  who  defies  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of 
powers  more  than  any  other  personage  on  earth,  is  the  Lord  Chan- 
cellor." 1  The  Lord  Chancellor  is  invariably  a  member  of  the  Cabinet. 
He  is  the  chief  judge  in  the  High  Court  of  Justice  and  in  the  Court  of 
Appeal.  He  appoints  and  removes  the  justices  of  the  peace  and  the 
judges  of  the  county  courts  and  wields  large  influence  in  appointments 
to  higher  judicial  posts.  He  affixes  the  Great  Seal  where  it  is  required 
to  give  validity  to  the  acts  of  the  crown  and  he  performs  a  wide  variety 
of  other  more  or  less  formal  services.  Finally,  it  is  the  Lord  High 
Chancellor  who  presides  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

65.  The  Five  Secretaries  of  State. — Five  of  the  great  departments 
to-day  represent  the  product  of  a  curious  evolution  of  the  ancient 
secretariat  of  state.  Originally  there  was  but  a  single  official  who  bore 
the  designation  of  secretary  of  state.  In  the  earlier  eighteenth  century 
a  second  official  was  added,  although  no  new  office  was  created.  At 
the  close  of  the  century  a  third  was  added,  after  the  Crimean  War  a 
fourth,  and  after  the  Indian  Mutiny  of  1857  a  fifth.  There  are  now, 
accordingly,  five  "principal  secretaries  of  state,"  all  in  theory  oc- 
cupying the  same  office  and  each,  save  for  a  few  statutory  restrictions, 
competent  legally  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  or  all  of  the  others. 
In  practice  each  of  the  five  holds  strictly  to  his  own  domain.  The 
group  comprises:  (i)  the 

assisted  by  a  parliamentary  under-secretary  and  a  large  s 
manent  officials,  and  possessing  functions  of  a  highly  miscellaneous 
1  Government  of  England,  I.,  131. 


64  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

sort — those,  in  general,  belonging  to  the  ancient  secretariat  which 
have  not  been  assigned  to  the  care  of  other  departments;  (2)  the 
Secretary  of  State  fqr  Foreign  Affajp,  at  the  head  of  a  department 
which  not  only  conducts  foreign  relations  but  administers  the  affairs  of 
such  protectorates  as  are  not  closely  connected  with  any  of  the  colonies; 
(3)  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies;  (4)  the  Secretary  Qf_$ta*e 
for  ffiar:  and  (5)  the  Secretary  of  StateTor  India,  assisted  by  a  special 
India  Council  of  ten  to  fourteen  members. 

66.  The  Administrative  Boards. — The  third  general  group  of  depart- 
ments comprises  those  which  have  arisen  through  the  establishment  in 
comparatively  recent  years  of  a  variety  of  administrative  boards  or 
commissions.    Two — the  "Rn^rH  ^  TrflifJS  and  the  Board  of  Education 
— originated  as  committees  of  the  Privy  Council.    Three"  others—trie 
Board  of  AgrJOiit^re,  the  Board^fJ^Jjjris,  and  the  Loca^GoyjerrnTient 
Boarji^-represent  the  development  of  aaministrative  commissions  not 
conceived  of  originally  as  vested  with  political  character.    All  are  in 
effect  independent  and  co-ordinate  governmental  departments.    The 
composition  and  functions  of  the  Board  of  Trade  are  regulated  by 
order  in  council  at  the  opening  of  each  reign,  but  the  character  of  the 
other  four  is  determined  wholly  by  statute.    At  the  head  of  each  is  a 
president  (save  that  the  chief  of  the  Board  of  Works  is  known  as  First 
Commissioner),  and  the  membership  embraces  the  five  secretaries  of 
state  and  a  variable  number  of  other  important  dignitaries.    This 
membership,  however,  is  but  nominal.    No  one  of  the  Boards  actually 
meets,  and  the  work  of  each  is  performed  entirely  by  its  president, 
with,  in  some  instances,  the  assistance  of  a  parliamentary  under- 
secretary.   "In  practice,  therefore,  these  boards  are  legal  phantoms 
that  provide  imaginary  colleagues  for  a  single  responsible  minis ter."  1 
Very  commonly  the  presidents  are  admitted  to  the  cabinet,  but  some- 
times they  are  not.2 

VI.  THE  CABINET:  COMPOSITION  AND  CHARACTER 

67.  Regular  and  Occasional  Members. — The  cabinet  comprises  a 
variable  group  of  the  principal  ministers  of  state  upon  whom  devolves 
singly  the  task  of  administering  the  affairs  of  their  respective  depart- 
ments and,  collectively,  that  of  shaping  the  policy  and  directing  the 
conduct  of  the  government  as  a  whole.    The  position  occupied  by  the 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England.  I.,  84. 

2  On  the  organization  and  workings  of  the  executive  departments  see  Lowell, 
op.  cit.,  I.,  Chaps.  4-6;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap.  5;  Anson, 
Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  i,  Chap.  3;  Traill,  Central  Govern- 
ment, Chaps.  3-11. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  65 

cabinet  in  the  constitutional  system  is  anomalous,  but  transcendently 
important.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  cabinet  as  such  is  unknown 
to  English  law.  Legally,  the  cabinet  member  derives  his  administra- 
tive function  from  the  fact  of  his  appointment  to  a  ministerial  post, 
and  his  advisory  function  from  his  membership  in  the  Privy  Council. 
The  cabinet  exists  as  an  informal,  extra-legal  ministerial  group  into 
whose  hands,  through  prolonged  historical  development,  has  fallen 
the  supreme  direction  of  both  the  executive  and  the  legislative  ac- 
tivities of  the  state.  The  composition  of  the  body  is  determined 
largely  by  custom,  but  in  part  by  passing  circumstance.  Certain 
ministerial  heads  are  invariably  included:  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treas- 
ury, the  Lord  Chancellor,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  the  five 
Secretaries  of  State,  and  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty.  Two  dig- 
nitaries who  possess  no  administrative  function,  i.  e.,  the  Lord  President 
of  the  Privy  Council  and  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,1  are  likewise  always 
included.  Beyond  this,  the  make-up  of  the  cabinet  group  is  left  to 
the  discretion  of  the  premier.  The  importance  of  a  given  office  at  the 
moment  and  the  wishes  of  the  appointee,  together  with  general  con- 
siderations of  party  expediency,  may  well  enter  into  a  decision  relative 
to  the  seating  of  individual  departmental  heads.  In  recent  years  the 
presidents  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Board  of  Education,  and  the 
Local  Government  Board  have  regularly  been  included,  together  with 
the  Lord  Lieutenant  or  the  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland.2  The  Sec- 
retary for  Scotland  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster  are 
usually  included;  the  Postmaster-General  and  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Agriculture  frequently,  and  the  First  Commissioner  of 
Works  and  the  Lord  Chancellor  for  Ireland  occasionally. 

68.  Increasing  Size. — The  trend  is  distinctly  in  the  direction  of  an 
increase  in  the  size  of  the  body.  The  more  notable  cabinets  of  the 
eighteenth  century  contained,  as  a  rule,  not  above  seven  to  ten  mem- 
bers. In  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  number  ran  up  to 
thirteen  or  fourteen,  and  throughout  the  Gladstone-Disraeli  period 
it  seldom  fell  below  this  level.  The  second  Salisbury  cabinet,  at  its 
fall  in  1892,  numbered  seventeen,  and  when,  following  the  elections  of 
1900,  the  third  Salisbury  government  was  reconstructed,  the  cabinet 

1  The  functions  of  this  official  are  but  nominal.    In  1870  Sir  Charles  Dilke  moved 
to  abolish  the  office  as  useless,  but  Gladstone  urged  the  desirability  of  having  in  the 
cabinet  at  least  one  man  who  should  not  be  burdened  with  the  management  of  a 
department,  and  the  motion  was  lost.    The  presidency  of  the  Council  is  a  post  like- 
wise of  dignity  but  of  meager  governmental  power  or  responsibility. 

2  In  theory  the  powers  of  the  executive  are  exercised  in  Ireland  by  the  Lord 
Lieutenant,  but  in  practice  they  devolve  almost  entirely  upon  the  nominally  in- 
ferior official,  the  Chief  Secretary. 


66  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

attained  a  membership  of  twenty.1  The  Balfour  cabinet  of  1905  and 
the  succeeding  Campbell-Bannerman  cabinet  likewise  numbered 
twenty.  The  increase  is  attributable  to  several  causes,  especially  the 
pressure  which  comes  from  ambitious  statesmen  for  admission  to  the 
influential  circle,  the  growing  necessity  of  according  representation  to 
varied  elements  and  interests  within  the  dominant  party,  the  multi- 
plication of  state  activities  which  call  for  direction  under  new  and 
important  departments,  and  the  disposition  to  accord  to  every  con- 
siderable branch  of  the  administrative  system  at  least  one  representa- 
tive. The  effect  is  to  produce  a  certain  unwieldiness,  to  avoid  which, 
it  will  be  recalled,  the  cabinet  was  originally  instituted.  Only  through 
the  domination  of  the  cabinet  by  a  few  of  its  most  influential  members 
can  expeditiousness  be  preserved,  and  during  recent  years  there  has 
been  a  tendency  toward  the  differentiation  of  an  inner  circle  which 
shall  bear  to  the  whole  cabinet  a  relation  somewhat  analogous  to  that 
which  the  cabinet  now  bears  to  the  ministry.  Development  in  this 
direction  is  viewed  apprehensively  by  many  people  who  regard  that 
the  concentration  of  power  in  the  hands  of  an  "inner  cabinet"  might 
well  fail  to  be  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  concentration  of 
recognized  responsibility.  During  more  than  a  decade  criticism  of 
the  inordinate  size  of  the  cabinet  group  has  been  voiced  freely  upon 
numerous  occasions  and  by  many  observers.2 

69.  Appointment  of  the  Premier. — When  a  new  cabinet  is  to  be 
made  up  the  first  step  is  the  designation  of  the  prime  minister.  Legally 
the  choice  rests  with  the  crown,  but  considerations  of  practical  politics 
leave,  as  a  rule,  no  room  whatsoever  for  the  exercise  of  discretion.  The 
crown  sends  as  a  matter  of  course  for  the  statesman  who  is  able  to 
command  the  support  of  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons.  If 
the  retiring  ministry  has  " fallen,"  i.  e.,  has  lost  its  parliamentary 
majority,  the  new  premier  is  certain  to  be  the  recognized  leader  of  the 
party  which  formerly  has  played  the  role  of  opposition.  If  there  has 
not  occurred  a  shift  in  party  status,  the  premiership  will  be  bestowed 
upon  some  one  of  the  colleagues,  at  least  upon  one  of  the  fellow- 
partisans,  of  the  retiring  premier,  nominated,  if  need  be,  by  the  chiefs 
of  the  party.  Thus,  when  in  1894  Gladstone  retired  from  office  by 
reason  of  physical  infirmity,  the  Liberal  leaders  in  the  two  houses  con- 
ferred upon  the  question  as  to  whether  he  should  be  succeeded  by 

1  Lord  Salisbury  at  this  point  retired  from  the  Foreign  Office,  which  was  assigned 
to  Lord  Lansdowne,  and  assumed  in  conjunction  with  the  premiership  the  less 
exacting  post  of  Lord  Privy  Seal. 

2  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  59;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Consti- 
tution, II.,  Pt.  i,  211. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  67 

Sir  William  Vernon-Harcourt  or  by  Lord  Rosebery.  They  recom- 
mended Lord  Rosebery,  who  was  forthwith  appointed  by  the  Queen. 
If,  by  any  circumstance,  the  premiership  should  fall  to  the  Opposition 
at  a  moment  when  the  leadership  of  this  element  is  in  doubt,  the  crown 
would  be  guided,  similarly,  by  the  informally  expressed  will  of  the  more 
influential  party  members.  While,  therefore,  the  appointment  of  the 
prime  minister  remains  the  sole  important  governmental  act  which  is 
performed  directly  by  the  sovereign,  even  here  the  substance  of  power 
has  been  lost  and  only  the  form  survives. 

70.  Selection  of  Other  Members. — The  remaining  members  of  the 
cabinet  are  selected  by  the  premier,  in  consultation,  as  a  rule,  with 
leading  members  of  the  party.  Technically,  what  happens  is  that  the 
first  minister  places  in  the  hands  of  the  sovereign  a  list  of  the  men 
whom  he  recommends  for  appointment  to  the  principal  offices  of  state. 
The  crown  accepts  the  list  and  there  appears  forthwith  in  the  London/) 
Gazette  an  announcement  to  the  effect  that  the  persons  named  have 
been  chosen  by  the  crown  to  preside  over  the  several  departments. 
Officially,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  "cabinet."  In  the  selection  of  his 
colleagues  the  premier  theoretically  has  a  free  hand.  Practically  he  is 
bound  by  the  necessity  of  complying  with  numerous  principles  and  of 
observing  various  precedents  and  practical  conditions.  Two  principles, 
in  particular,  must  be  adhered  to  in  determining  the  structure  of  every 
cabinet.  All  of  the  members  must  have  seats  in  one  or  the  other  of  th 
two  houses  of  Parliament,  and  all  must  be  identified  with  the  party 
in  power,  or,  at  the  least,  with  an  allied  political  group.  There  was  a 
time,  when  the  personal  government  of  the  king  was  yet  a  reality,  when 
the  House  of  Commons  refused  to  admit  to  its  membership  persons 
who  held  office  under  the  crown,  and  this  disqualification  found  legal 
expression  as  late  as  the  Act  of  Settlement  of  lyoi.1  With  the  ripening 
of  parliamentary  government  in  the  eighteenth  century,  however,  the 
thing  that  once  had  been  regarded  properly  enough  as  objectionable 
became  a  matter  of  unquestionable  expediency,  if  not  a  necessity. 
When  once  the  ministers  comprised  the  real  executive  of  the  nation  it 
was  but  logical  that  they  should  be  authorized  to  appear  on  the  floor 
of  the  two  houses  to  introduce  and  advocate  measures  and  to  explain 
the  acts  of  the  government.  Ministers  had  occupied  regularly  seats  in 
the  upper  chamber,  and  not  only  was  all  objection  to  their  occupying 
seats  in  the  lower  chamber  removed,  but  by  custom  it  came  to  be 
an  inflexible  rule  that  cabinet  officers,  and  indeed  the  ministers  gen- 
erally, should  be  drawn  exclusively  from  the  membership  of  the  two 

1  The  clause  of  this  measure  which  bore  upon  the  point  in  hand  was  repealed, 
however,  before  it  went  into  operation. 


68  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

houses.1  Under  provision  of  an  act  of  1707  it  is  still  obligatory  upon 
commoners  who  are  tendered  a  cabinet  appointment,  with  a  few  ex- 
ceptions, to  vacate  their  seats  and  to  offer  themselves  to  their  constit- 
uents for  re-election.  But  re-election  almost  invariably  follows  as  a 
matter  of  course  and  without  opposition.2  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
there  are  two  expedients  by  which  it  is  possible  to  bring  into  the  cabi- 
net a  desirable  member  who  at  the  time  of  his  appointment  does  not 
possess  a  seat  in  Parliament.  The  appointee  may  be  created  a  peer;  or 
he  may  stand  for  election  to  the  Commons  and,  winning,  qualify  him- 
self for  a  cabinet  post. 

71.  Distribution  Between  the  Houses  of  Parliament. — Since  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  tenure  of  the  premiership  has 
been  divided  approximately  equally  between  peers  and  commoners, 
but  the  apportionment  of  cabinet  seats  between  the  two  houses  has 
been  extremely  variable.  The  first  cabinet  of  the  reign  of  George  III. 
contained  fourteen  members,  thirteen  of  whom  had  seats  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  and,  in  general,  throughout  the  eighteenth  century  the  peers 
were  apt  greatly  to  preponderate.  With  the  growth  in  importance  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  however,  and  especially  after  the  Reform 
Act  of  1832,  the  tendency  was  to  draw  an  ever  increasing  proportion 
of  the  cabinet  officers  from  the  chamber  in  which  lies  the  storm  center 
of  English  politics.  By  legal  stipulation  one  of  the  secretaries  of 
state  must  sit  in  the  upper  house;  and  the  Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  and  the  Lord  President  of  the  Council  are  all  but  invariably 
peers.  Beyond  this,  there  is  no  positive  requirement,  in  either  law  or 
custom.  In  the  ministries  of  recent  times  the  number  of  peers  and  of 
commoners  has  generally  been  not  far  from  equal.  To  fill  the  various 
posts  the  premier  must  bring  together  the  best  men  he  can  secure — not 
necessarily  the  ablest,  but  those  who  will  work  together  most  effec- 
tively— with  but  secondary  regard  to  the  question  of  whether  they  sit 
in  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  legislative  houses.  A  department  whose 
chief  sits  in  the  Commons  is  certain  to  be  represented  in  the  Lords  by 
an  under-secretary  or  other  spokesman,  and  vice  versa.3 

1  The  one  notable  instance  in  which  this  rule  has  been  departed  from  within  the 
past  seventy-five  years  was  Gladstone's  tenure  of  the  post  of  Secretary  of  State  for 
the  Colonies  during  the  last  six  months  of  the  Peel  administration  in  1846. 

2  On  the  reasons  for  the  requirement  of  re-election  and  the  movement  for  the 
abolition  of  the  requirement  see  Moran,  The  English  Government,  108-109. 

3  In  France  and  other  continental  countries  in  which  the  parliamentary  system 
obtains  an  executive  department  is  represented  in  Parliament  by  its  presiding 
official  only.    But  this  official  is  privileged,  as  the  English  minister  is  not,  to  ap- 
pear and  to  speak  and  otherwise  participate  in  proceedings  on  the  floor  of  either 
chamber. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  69 

72.  Political   Solidarity. — A  second  fundamental  principle  whi< 
dominates  the  structure  of  the  cabinet  is  that  which  requires  that  th< 
members  be  men  of  one  political  faith.    William  III.  sought  to  govei 
with  a  cabinet  in  which  there  were  both  Whigs  and  Tories,  but  the 
result  was  confusion  and  the  experiment  was  abandoned.     Except 
during  the  ascendancy  of  Walpole,  the  cabinets  of  the  eighteentl 
century  very  generally  embraced  men  of  more  or  less  diverse  politic* 
affiliations,  but  gradually  the  conviction  took  root  that  in  the  interest 
of  unity  and  efficiency  the  political  solidarity  of  the  cabinet  group  isj 
indispensable.    The  last  occasion  upon  which  it  was  proposed  to  mak< 
up  a  cabinet  from  utterly  diverse  political  elements  was  in  1812. 
scheme  was  rejected,  and  from  that  day  to  this  cabinets  have  been^ 
composed  regularly,  not  necessarily  of  men  identified  with  a  comm< 
political  party,  but  at  least  of  men  who  are  in  substantial  agreement 
upon  the  larger  questions  of  policy  and  who  have  expressed  their  will-1 
ingness  to  co-operate  in  the  carrying  out  of  a  given  programme  of 
action.    The  fundamental  requisite  is  unity.    A  Liberal  Unionis) 
may  occupy  a  post  in  a  Conservative  cabinet  and  a  Laborite  in 
Liberal  administration,  but  he  may  not  oppose  the  Government 
upon  any  important  question  and  expect  to  continue  a  member  of  it, 
save  by  the  express  permission  of  the  premier.    It  is  the  obligation  of 
every  cabinet  member  to  agree,  or   to  appear  to  agree,  with  his 
colleagues.    If  he  is  unable  to  do  this,  no  course  is  open  to  him  save 
resignation. 

73.  Other  Considerations  Determining  Appointment. — In  the  selec- 
tion of  his  colleagues  the  premier  works  under  still  other  practical 
restrictions.    One  of  them  is  the  well-established  rule  that  surviving 
members  of  the  last  cabinet  of  the  party,  in  so  far  as  they  are  in  active 
public  life  and  desirous  of  appointment,  shall  be  given  prior  considera- 
tion.   Members  of  the  party,  furthermore,  who  have  come  into  special 
prominence  and  influence  in  Parliament  must  usually  be  included. 
In  truth,  as  Bagehot  points  out,  the  premier's  independent  choice  is 
apt  to  find  scope  not  so  much  in  the  determination  of  the  cabinet's 
personnel  as  in  the  distribution  of  offices  among  the  members  selected; 
and  even  here  he  will  often  be  obliged  to  subordinate  his  wishes  to  the 
inclinations,  susceptibilities,  and  capacities  of  his  prospective  col- 
leagues.    In  the  expressive  simile  of  Lowell,  the  premier's  task  is 
"like  that  of  constructing  a  figure  out  of  blocks  which  are  too  nu- 
merous for  the  purpose,  and  which  are  not  of  shapes  to  fit  perfectly 
together."  1 

1  Government  of  England,  I.,  57.    See  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parliament, 
148-183. 


70  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE' 


VII.  THE  CABINET  IN  ACTION 

j  74.  Ministerial  Responsibility. — In  its  actual  operation  the  English 
>  cabinet  system  involves  the  unvarying  application  of  three  principles : 
responsibility  of  cabinet  ministers  to  Parliament;  (2)  the  non- 
ty  of  cabinet  proceedings;  and  (3)  the  close  co-ordination  of 
the  cabinet  group  under  the  leadership  of  the  premier.  Every  minister 
whether  or  not  in  the  cabinet,  is  responsible  individually  to  Parlia- 
ment, which  in  effect  means  to  the  House  of  Commons,  for  all  of  his 
public  acts.  If  he  is  accorded  a  vote  of  censure  he  must  retire.  In 
the  earlier  eighteenth  century  the  resignation  of  a  cabinet  officer  did 
not  affect  the  tenure  of  his  colleagues,  the  first  of  cabinets  to  retire  as  a 
unit  being  that  of  Lord  North  in  1782.  Subsequently,  however, 
the  ministerial  body  so  developed  in  compactness  that  in  relation  to 
the  outside  world,  and  even  to  Parliament,  the  individual  officer  came 
to  be  effectually  subordinated  to  the  group.  Not  since  1866  has  a 
cabinet  member  retired  singly  in  consequence  of  an  adverse  parlia- 
mentary vote.  If  an  individual  minister  falls  into  serious  disfavor  one 
of  two  things  almost  certainly  happens.  Either  the  offending  member 
is  persuaded  by  his  colleagues  to  modify  his  course  or  to  resign  before 
formal  parliamentary  censure  shall  have  been  passed,  or  the  cabinet  as 
a  whole  rallies  to  the  support  of  the  minister  in  question  and  stands 
or  falls  with  him.  This  is  but  another  way  of  saying  that,  in  practice, 
the  responsibility  of  the  cabinet  is  collective  rather  than  individual, 
a  condition  by  which  the  seriousness  and  effectiveness  of  it  are  vastly 
increased.  This  responsibility  covers  the  entire  range  of  acts  of  the 
executive  department  of  the  government,  whether  regarded  as  acts 
of  the  crown  or  of  the  ministers  themselves,  and  it  constitutes  the  most 
distinctive  feature  of  the  English  parliamentary  system.  Formerly 
the  only  means  by  which  ministers  could  be  held  to  account  by  Parlia- 
ment was  that  of  impeachment.  With  the  development,  however,  of 
the  principle  of  ministerial  responsibility  as  a  necessary  adjunct  to 
parliamentary  government,  the  occasional  and  violent  process  of 
impeachment  was  superseded  by  continuous,  inescapable,  and  pacific 
legislative  supervision.  The  impeachment  of  cabinet  ministers  may 
be  regarded,  indeed,  as  obsolete. 

75.  How  a  Ministry  may  Be  Overthrown. — A  fundamental  maxim 
of  the  constitution  to-day  is  that  a  cabinet  shall  continue  in  office  only 
so  long  as  it  enjoys  the  confidence  and  support  of  a  majority  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  There  are  at  least  four  ways  in  which  a  parlia- 
mentary majority  may  manifest  its  dissatisfaction  with  a  cabinet, 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  71 

and  so  compel  its  resignation.  It  may  pass  a  simple  vote  of  "want  of 
confidence,"  assigning  therefor  no  definite  reason.  It  may  pass  a  vote 
of  censure,  criticising  the  cabinet  for  some  specific  act.  It  may  defeat 
a  measure  which  the  cabinet  advocates  and  declares  to  be  of  vital 
importance.  Or  it  may  pass  a  bill  in  opposition  to  the  advice  of  the 
ministers.  The  cabinet  is  not  obliged  to  give  heed  to  an  adverse  vote 
in  the  Lords;  but  when  any  of  the  four  votes  indicated  is  carried  in  the 
lower  chamber  the  premier  and  his  colleagues  must  do  one  of  two 
things— resign  or  appeal  to  the  country.  If  it  is  clear  that  the  cabinet 
has  lost  the  support,  not  only  of  Parliament,  but  also  of  the  electorate, 
the  only  honorable  course  for  the  ministry  is  that  of  resignation.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  doubt  as  to  whether  the  parliamentary 
majority  really  represents  the  country  upon  the  matters  at  issue,  the 
ministers  are  warranted  in  requesting  the  sovereign  to  dissolve  Parlia- 
ment and  to  order  a  general  election.  In  such  a  situation  the  ministry 
continues  tentatively  in  office.  If  at  the  elections  there  is  returned  a 
majority  disposed  to  support  the  ministers,  the  cabinet  is  given  a  new 
lease  of  life.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  new  parliamentary  majority 
is  adverse,  no  course  is  open  to  the  ministry  save  to  retire.  The  new 
parliament  will  be  convoked  at  the  earliest  practicable  date;  but  in 
advance  of  its  assembling  the  defeated  cabinet  will  generally  have 
resigned  and  a  new  government,  presided  over  by  the  leader  of  the 
late  Opposition,  will  have  assumed  the  reins.  During  the  interval 
required  for  the  transfer  of  power  none  save  routine  business  is  likely 
to  be  undertaken. 

76.  Secrecy  of  Proceedings. — Perpetually  responsible  to  the  House 
of  Commons  and  imperatively  obligated  to  resign  collectively  when  no 
longer  able  to  command  a  working  majority  in  that  body,  the  cabinet 
must  at  all  times  employ  every  device  by  which  it  may  be  enabled  to 
present  a  solid  and  imposing  front.  Two  such  devices  are  those 
of  secrecy  and  the  leadership  of  the  premier.  It  is  a  sufficiently  famil- 
iar principle  that  a  group  of  men  brought  together  to  agree  upon  and 
execute  a  common  policy  in  behalf  of  a  widespread  and  diverse  con- 
stituency will  be  more  likely  to  succeed  if  the  differences  that  must 
inevitably  appear  within  their  ranks  are  not  published  to  the  world. 
It  is  in  deference  to  this  principle  that  the  German  Bundesrath  trans- 
acts its  business  to  this  day  behind  closed  doors,  and  it  was  for  an 
analogous  reason  that  the  public  was  excluded  from  the  sittings  of  the 
convention  by  which  the  present  constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  framed.  Notices  of  meetings  of  the  English  cabinet  and  the 
names  of  members  present  appear  regularly  in  the  press,  but  respecting 
the  subjects  discussed,  the  opinions  expressed,  and  the  conclusions 


72  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

arrived  at  not  a  word  is  given  out,  officially  or  unofficially.  The  oath 
of  secrecy,  required  of  all  privy  councillors,  is  binding  in  a  special 
degree  upon  the  cabinet  officer.  Not  even  the  sovereign  is  favored 
with  more  than  a  statement  of  the  topics  considered,  together  with 
occasionally  a  formal  draft  of  such  decisions  as  require  his  assent. 
In  the  earlier  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  meager  minutes  of  the 
proceedings  were  preserved,  but  nowadays  no  clerical  employee  is 
allowed  to  be  present  and  no  record  whatsoever  is  kept.1  For  knowl- 
edge of  past  transactions  members  rely  upon  their  own  or  their  col- 
leagues' memories,  supplemented  at  times  by  privately  kept  notes. 
The  meetings,  which  are  held  only  as  occasion  requires  (usually  as 
often  as  once  a  week  when  Parliament  is  in  session)  are  notably  in- 
formal. There  is  not  even  a  fixed  place  where  meetings  are  held,  the 
members  being  gathered  sometimes  at  the  Foreign  Office,  sometimes 
at  the  premier's  house,  and,  as  circumstance  may  arise,  at  almost  any 
convenient  place. 

77.  Leadership  of  the  Premier. — The  unity  of  the  cabinet  is  further 
safeguarded  and  emphasized  by  the  leadership  of  the  prime  minister. 
Long  after  the  rise  of  the  cabinet  to  controlling  influence  in  the  state 
the  members  of  the  ministerial  body  continued  supposedly  upon  a 
common  footing  in  respect  both  to  rank  and  authority.  The  habitual 
abstention  of  the  early  Hanoverians  from  attendance  at  cabinet  meet- 
ings, however,  left  the  group  essentially  leaderless,  and  by  a  natural 
process  of  development  the  members  came  gradually  to  recognize  a 
virtual  presidency  on  the  part  of  one  of  their  own  number.  In  time 
what  was  a  mere  presidency  was  converted  into  a  thoroughgoing 
leadership,  in  short,  into  the  premier's  office  of  to-day.  It  is  commonly 
regarded  that  the  first  person  who  fulfilled  the  functions  of  prime 
minister  in  the  modern  sense  was  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  First  Lord  of  the 
Treasury  from  1715  to  1717  and  from  1721  to  1742.  The  phrase 
" prime  minister"  was  not  at  that  time  in  use,  but  that  the  realities  of 
the  office  existed  is  indicated  by  a  motion  made  in  the  Commons 
attacking  Walpole  on  the  ground  that  he  had  "grasped  in  his  own 
hands  every  branch  of  government;  had  attained  the  sole  direction  of 
affairs;  had  monopolized  all  the  powers  of  the  crown;  had  compassed 
the  disposal  of  all  places,  pensions,  titles,  and  rewards" — almost  pre- 
cisely, as  one  writer  puts  it,  what  the  present  premier  is  doing  and  is 

1  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  President's  cabinet  in  the  United  States.  The 
reasons  for  the  policy  are  obvious  and  ample;  but  the  preservation  of  cabinet 
records,  whether  in  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States,  would,  if  such  records  were 
to  be  made  accessible,  facilitate  enormously  the  task  of  the  historian  and  of  the 
student  of  practical  government. 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  73 

expected  to  do.1  By  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  ministry  of 
the  younger  Pitt,  in  1783,  the  ascendancy  of  the  premier  among  his 
colleagues  was  an  accomplished  fact  and  was  recognized  as  altogether 
legitimate.  The  enormous  power  of  the  premier,  arising  immediately 
upon  the  ruins  of  the  royal  prerogative,  was  brought  virtually  to  com- 
pletion when,  during  the  later  years  of  George  III.,  the  rule  became 
fixed  that  in  constituting  a  ministry  the  king  should  but  ratify  the 
choice  of  officials  made  by  the  premier. 

Not  until  1906  was  the  premier's  office  recognized  by  law,2  but 
through  more  than  a  century  no  other  public  position  in  the  nation 
has  been  comparable  with  it  in  volume  of  actual  ruling  power.  Within 
the  ministry,  more  particularly  the  cabinet,  the  premier  is  the  guiding 
force.  He  presides,  as  a  rule,  at  cabinet  meetings;  he  advises  with 
colleagues  upon  all  matters  of  consequence  to  the  administration's 
welfare;  and,  although  he  will  shrink  from  doing  it,  he  may  require 
of  his  colleagues  that  they  acquiesce  in  his  views,  with  the  alternative 
of  his  resignation.3  He  occupies  one  of  the  high  offices  of  state,  usually 
that  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury;  and,  although  ordinarily  his  own 
portfolio  will  not  require  much  of  his  time  or  energy,  he  must  main- 
tain as  close  a  watch  as  may  be  over  the  affairs  of  every  one  of  the  de- 
partments in  which  his  appointees  have  been  placed.  The  prime  min- 
ister, is,  furthermore,  the  link  between  the  cabinet  and,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  crown,  and,  on  the  other,  Parliament.  On  behalf  of  the 
cabinet  he  advises  with  the  sovereign,  communicating  information 
respecting  ministerial  acts  and  synopses  of  the  daily  debates  in  Parlia- 

1  Moran,  The  English  Government,  99. 

2  In  a  statute  fixing  the  order  of  precedence  of  public  dignitaries.    The  premier's 
position,  however,  was  defined  by  a  royal  warrant  of  December,  1905. 

3  The  resignation  of  the  premier  terminates  ipso  facto  the  life  of  the  ministry.    An 
excellent  illustration  of  the  accustomed  subordination  of  individual  differences  of 
opinion  to  the  interests  of  cabinet  solidarity  is  afforded  by  some  remarks  made  by 
Mr.  Asquith,  December  4,  1911,  to  a  deputation  of  the  National  League  for  Op- 
posing Woman  Suffrage.    The  deputation  had  called  to  protest  against  the  Govern- 
ment's announced  purpose  to  attach  a  suffrage  amendment  (if  carried  in  the  House 
of  Commons)  to  a  forthcoming  measure  of  franchise  reform.    The  Premier  ex- 
plained that  he  was,  and  always  had  been,  of  the  opinion  that  "the  grant  of  the 
parliamentary  franchise  to  women  in  this  country  would  be  a  political  mistake  ot 
a  very  grievous  kind."     "So  far,"  he  continued,  "we  are  in  complete  harmony 
with  one  another.    On  the  other  hand,  I  am,  as  you  know,  for  the  time  being  the 
head  of  the  Government,  in  which  a  majority  of  my  colleagues,  a  considerable 
majority  of  my  colleagues—I  may  say  that  without  violating  the  obligation  of 
cabinet  secrecy  .  .  .  — are  of  a  different  opinion;  and  the  Government  in  those 
circumstances  has  announced  a  policy  which  is  the  result  of  their  combined  deliber- 
ations, and  by  which  it  is  the  duty  of  all  their  members,  and  myself  not  least,  to 
abide  loyally.   That  is  the  position,  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned." 


74  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ment.  In  the  house  of  which  he  is  a  member  he  represents  the  cabinet 
as  a  whole,  makes  such  statements  as  are  necessary  relative  to  general 
aspects  of  the  government's  policy,  and  speaks,  as  a  rule,  upon  every 
general  or  important  projected  piece  of  legislation.  As  a  matter  of 
both  theory  and  historical  fact,  the  premier  who  belongs  to  the  House 
of  Commons  is  more  advantageously  situated  than  one  who  sits  in  the 
Lords.1 

^  -  78.  The  Cabinet's  Central  Position. — In  the  English  governmental 
.Jt^system  the  cabinet  is  in  every  sense  the  keystone  of  the  arch.  Its 
mctions  are  both  executive  and  legislative,  and  indeed,  to  employ  the 
gure  of  Bagehot,  it  comprises  the  hyphen  that  joins,  the  buckle  that 
tens,  the  executive  and  the  legislative  departments  together.2  As 
has  been  pointed  out,  the  uses  of  the  crown  are  by  no  means  wholly 
ornamental.  None  the  less,  the  actual  executive  of  the  nation  is  the 
cabinet.  It  is  within  the  cabinet  circle  that  administrative  policies 
are  decided  upon,  and  it  is  by  the  cabinet  ministers  and  their  sub- 
ordinates in  the  several  departments  that  these  policies,  and  the  laws 
of  the  land  generally,  are  carried  into  effect.  On  the  other  side,  the 
cabinet  members  not  only  occupy  seats  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  houses 
of  Parliament;  collectively  they  direct  the  processes  of  legislation. 
They — primarily  the  prime  minister — prepare  the  Speech  from  the 
Throne,  in  which  at  the  opening  of  a  parliamentary  session  the  state 
of  the  country  is  reviewed  and  a  programme  of  legislation  is  outlined. 
They  formulate,  introduce,  explain,  and  advocate  needful  legislative 
measures  upon  all  manner  of  subjects;  and  although  bills  may  be  sub- 
mitted in  either  house  by  private  members  it  is  a  recognized  principle 
that  all  measures  of  large  importance  shall  emanate  directly  or  in- 
directly from  the  cabinet.  Statistics  demonstrate  that  measures  in- 
troduced by  private  members  have  but  an  infinitesimal  chance  of 
enactment. 

In  effect,  the  cabinet  comprises  a  parliamentary  committee  chosen, 
as  Bagehot  bluntly  puts  it,  to  rule  the  nation.  If  a  cabinet  group  does 
not  represent  the  ideas  and  purposes  of  Parliament  as  a  whole,  it  at 
least  represents  those  of  the  majority  of  the  preponderating  chamber; 
and  that  is  ample  to  give  it,  during  the  space  of  its  tenure  of  office, 
a  thoroughgoing  command  of  the  situation.  The  basal  fact  of  the 
political  system  is  the  control  of  party,  and  within  the  party  the  power 
that  governs  is  the  cabinet.  "The  machinery,"  says  Lowell,  "is  one 

1  Low,  The  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  9;  M.  Sibert,  £tude  sur  le  premier 
ministre  en  Angleterre  depuis  ses  origines  jusqu'i  T6poque  contemporaine  (Paris, 
1009). 

2  The  English  Constitution  (new  ed.),  79- 


THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY  75 

of  wheels  within  wheels;  the  outside  ring  consisting  of  the  party  that 
has  a  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons;  the  next  ring  being  the  min- 
istry, which  contains  the  men  who  are  most  active  within  that  party; 
and  the  smallest  of  all  being  the  cabinet,  containing  the  real  leaders 
or  chiefs.  By  this  means  is  secured  that  unity  of  party  action  which 
depends  upon  placing  the  directing  power  in  the  hands  of  a  body  small 
enough  to  agree,  and  influential  enough  to  control."  1 

1  Government  of  England,  I.,  56.  The  best  discussion  of  the  organization,  func- 
tions, and  relationships  of  the  cabinet  is  contained  in  Lowell,  op.  cit.,  I.,  Chaps. 
2-3,  17-18,  22-23.  Other  good  general  accounts  are  Low,  Governance  of  England, 
Chaps.  2-4,  8-9;  Moran,  English  Government,  Chaps.  4-9;  Macy,  English  Con- 
stitution, Chap.  6;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II.,  Pt.  i,  Chap.  2; 
and  Maitland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  387-430.  A  detailed  and  still 
valuable  survey  is  in  Todd,  Parliamentary  Government,  Parts  3-4.  A  brilliant 
study  is  Bagehot,  English  Constitution,  especially  Chaps,  i,  6-9.  The  growth  of 
the  cabinet  is  well  described  in  Blauvelt,  The  Development  of  Cabinet  Govern- 
ment in  England;  and  a  monograph  of  value  is  P.  le  Vasseur,  Le  cabinet  britan- 
nique  sous  la  reine  Victoria  (Paris,  1902).  For  an  extended  bibliography  see  Select 
List  of  Books  on  the  Cabinets  of  England  and  America  (Washington,  1903),  com- 
piled in  the  Library  of  Congress  under  the  direction  of  A.  P.  C.  Griffin. 


CHAPTER  IV 
PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 

79.  Antiquity  and  Importance. — The  British  Parliament  is  at  once 
the  oldest,  the  most  comprehensive  in  jurisdiction,  and  the  most  power- 
ful among  modern  legislative  assemblages.  In  structure,  and  to  some 
extent  in  function,  it  is  a  product,  as  has  appeared,  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  term  "parliament,"  employed  originally  to  denote  a  discussion  or 
conference,  was  applied  officially  to  the  Great  Council  in  I275;1  and  by 
the  opening  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  institution  which  the  English 
know  to-day  by  that  name  had  come  clearly  into  existence,  being  then, 
indeed,  what  technically  it  still  is — the  king  and  the  three  estates  of 
the  realm,  i.  e.,  the  lords  spiritual,  the  lords  temporal,  and  the  com- 
mons. During  upwards  of  a  hundred  years  the  three  estates  sat  and 
deliberated  separately.  By  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Edward  III.  (1327- 
1377),  however,  the  bicameral  principle  had  become  fixed,  and  through- 
out the  whole  of  its  subsequent  history  (save  during  the  Cromwellian 
era  of  experimentation)  Parliament  has  comprised  uninterruptedly, 
aside  from  the  king,  the  two  branches  which  exist  at  the  present  time, 
the  House  of  Lords  and  the  House  of  Commons,  or,  strictly,  the  Lords 
of  Parliament  and  the  Representatives  of  the  Commons. 

The  range  of  jurisdiction  which,  step  by  step,  these  chambers,  both 
separately  and  conjointly,  have  acquired  has  been  broadened  until, 
so  far  as  the  dominions  of  the  British  crown  extend,  it  covers  all  but 
the  whole  of  the  domain  of  human  government.  And  within  this 
enormous  expanse  of  political  control  the  competence  of  the  chambers 
knows,  in  neither  theory  nor  fact,  any  restriction.  "The  British  Parlia- 
ment, .  .  ."  writes  Mr.  Bryce,  "can  make  and  unmake  any  and  every 
law,  change  the  form  of  government  or  the  succession  to  the  crown, 
interfere  with  the  course  of  justice,  extinguish  the  most  sacred  private 
rights  of  the  citizen.  Between  it  and  the  people  at  large  there  is  no 
legal  distinction,  because  the  whole  plenitude  of  the  people's  rights 
and  powers  resides  in  it,  just  as  if  the  whole  nation  were  present  within 
the  chamber  where  it  sits.  In  point  of  legal  theory  it  is  the  nation, 
being  the  historical  successor  of  the  Folk  Moot  of  our  Teutonic  fore- 

1  In  the  First  Statute  of  Westminster. 
76 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  77 

fathers.  Both  practically  and  legally,  it  is  to-day  the  only  and  the 
sufficient  depository  of  the  authority  of  the  nation;  and  it  is  therefore, 
within  the  sphere  of  law,  irresponsible  and  omnipotent."1  Whether 
the  business  in  hand  be  constituent  or  legislative,  whether  ecclesias- 
tical or  temporal,  the  right  of  Parliament — or,  more  accurately  "the 
King  in  Parliament" — to  discuss  and  to  dispose  is  indisputable. 

I.  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  PRIOR  TO  1832 

80.  Present  Ascendancy. — Legally,  as  has  been  explained,  Parlia- 
ment consists  of  the  king,  the  lords  spiritual,   the  lords  temporal, 
and  the  commons.    For  practical  purposes,  however,  it  is  the  House 
of  Commons  alone.    "When,"  as  Spencer  Walpole  wrote  a  quarter  of 
a  century  ago,  "a  minister  consults  Parliament  he  consults  the  House 
of  Commons;  when  the  Queen  dissolves  Parliament  she  dissolves  the 
House  of  Commons.     A  new  Parliament  is  simply  a  new  House  of 
Commons."  '    The  gathering  of  the  "representatives  of  the  commons" 
at  Westminster  is,  and  has  long  been,  without  question  the  most 
important  agency  of  government  in  the  kingdom.     The  House  of  Com- 
mons consists  at  the  present  day  of  670  members,  of  whom  465  sit  for 
English  constituencies,  30  for  Welsh,  72  for  Scottish,  and  103  for  Irish. 
Nine  of  the  members  are  chosen,  under  somewhat  special  conditions, 
by  the  universities,  but  the  remaining  66 1  are  elected  in  county  or 
borough  constituencies  under  franchise  arrangements,  which,  while  based 
upon  residence  and  property  qualifications,  fall  not  far  short  of  man- 
hood suffrage.    The  chamber  is  at  the  same  time  the  preponderating 
repository  of  power  in  the  national  government  and  the  prime  organ 
of  the  popular  will.    It  is  in  consequence  of  its  prolonged  and  arduous 
development  that  Great  Britain  has  attained  democracy  in  national 
government;  and  the  influence  of  English  democracy  as  actualized  in 
the  House  of  Commons  upon  the  political  ideas  and  the  governmental 
agencies  of  the  outlying  world,  both  English-speaking  and  non-English- 
speaking,  is  simply  incalculable. 

81.  Undemocratic  Character  at  the  Opening  of  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury.— "The  virtue,  the  spirit,  the  essence  of  the  House  of  Commons," 
once  declared  Edmund  Burke,  "consists  in  its  being  the  express  image 
of  the  nation."   In  the  eighteenth  century,  however,  when  this  assertion 
was  made,  the  House  of  Commons  was,  in  point  of  fact,  far  from  con- 
stituting such  an  "image."    Until,  indeed,  the  nineteenth  century  was 
well  advanced  the  nominally  popular  parliamentary  branch  was  in 

1  The  American  Commonwealth  (30!  ed.),  I.,  35-36. 

8  The  Electorate  and  the  Legislature  (London,  1892),  48. 


78  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

reality  representative,  not  of  the  mass  of  the  nation,  but  of  the  aristo- 
cratic and  governing  elements,  at  best  of  the  well-to-do  middle  classes; 
and  a  correct  appreciation  of  the  composition  and  character  of  the 
chamber  as  it  to-day  exists  requires  some  allusion  to  the  process  by 
which  its  democratization  was  accomplished.  In  1832 — the  year  of 
the  first  great  Reform  Act — the  House  of  Commons  consisted  of  658 
members,  of  whom  186  represented  the  forty  counties  and  472  sat  for 
two  hundred  three  boroughs.  The  apportionment  of  both  county  and 
borough  members  was  haphazard  and  grossly  inequitable.  In  the 
Unites  States,  and  in  many  European  countries,  it  is  required  by  con- 
stitutional provision  that  following  a  decennial  census  there  shall  be 
a  reapportionment  of  seats  in  the  popular  legislative  chamber,  the  pur- 
pose being,  of  course,  to  preserve  substantial  equality  among  the  elec- 
toral constituencies  and,  ultimately,  an  essential  parity  of  political  power 
among  the  voters.  At  no  time,  however,  has  there  been  in  Great 
Britain  either  legislation  or  the  semblance  of  a  tradition  in  respect 
to  this  matter.  Reapportionment  has  taken  place  only  partially  and 
at  irregular  intervals,  and  at  but  a  few  times  in  the  history  of  the  nation 
have  constituencies  represented  at  Westminster  been  even  approxi- 
mately equal.  Save  that,  in  1707,  forty-five  members  were  added  to 
represent  Scotland  and,  in  1801,  one  hundred  to  sit  for  Ireland,  the 
identity  of  the  constituencies  represented  in  the  Commons  continued 
all  but  unchanged  from  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  to  the  reform  of  1832. 
82.  Need  of  a  Redistribution  of  Seats. — The  population  changes, 
in  respect  to  both  growth  and  distribution,  falling  within  this  extended 
period  were,  however,  enormous.  In  1689  the  population  of  England 
and  Wales  was  not  in  excess  of  5,500,000.  The  census  of  1831  revealed 
in  these  countries  a  population  of  14,000,000.  In  the  seventeenth  and 
earlier  eighteenth  centuries  the  great  mass  of  the  English  people  lived 
in  the  south  and  east.  Liverpool  was  but  an  insignificant  town,  Man- 
chester a  village,  and  Birmingham  a  sand-hill.  But  the  industrial 
revolution  had  the  effect  of  bringing  coal,  iron,  and  water-power  into 
enormous  demand,  and  after  1775  the  industrial  center,  and  likewise 
the  population  center,  of  the  country  was  shifted  rapidly  toward  the 
north.  In  the  hitherto  almost  uninhabited  valleys  of  Lancashire  and 
Yorkshire  sprang  up  a  multitude  of  factory  towns  and  cities.  In  Par- 
liament these  fast-growing  populations  were  either  glaringly  under- 
represented  or  not  represented  at  all.  In  1831  the  ten  southernmost 
counties  of  England  contained  a  population  of  3,260,00x3  and  returned 
to  Parliament  235  members.1  At  the  same  time  the  six  northernmost 

1  That  is  to  say,  the  quota  of  members  mentioned  was  returned  by  the  counties 
and  by  the  boroughs  contained  geographically  within  them. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  79 

counties  contained  a  population  of  3,594,000,  but  returned  only  68 
members.  Cornwall,  with  300,000  inhabitants,  had  42  representatives; 
Lancashire,  with  1,330,000,  had  14.  Among  towns,  Birmingham  and 
Manchester,  each  with  upwards  of  100,000  people,  and  Leeds  and 
Sheffield,  each  with  50,000,  had  no  representation  whatever.  On  the 
other  hand,  boroughs  were  entitled  to  representation  which  contained 
ridiculously  scant  populations,  or  even  no  population  at  all.  Gatto, 
in  Surrey,  was  a  park;  Old  Sarum,  in  Wiltshire,  was  a  deserted  hill; 
the  remains  of  what  once  was  Dunwich  were  under  the  waves  of  the 
North  Sea.  Bosseney,  in  Cornwall,  was  a  hamlet  of  three  cottages, 
eight  of  whose  nine  electors  belonged  to  a  single  family.  But  Bosseney 
sent  two  members  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

83.  County  and  Borough  Franchise  in  1831. — Not  only  was  there, 
thus,  the  most  glaring  lack  of  adjustment  of  parliamentary  representa- 
tion to  the  distribution  of  population ;  where  the  right  of  representation 
existed,  the  franchise  arrangements  under  which  members  were  elected 
were  hopelessly  heterogeneous  and  illiberal.  Originally,  as  has  been 
pointed  out,1  the  representatives  of  the  counties  were  chosen  in  the 
county  court  by  all  persons  who  were  entitled  to  attend  and  to  take 
part  in  the  proceedings  of  that  body.  In  1429,  during  the  reign  of 
Henry  VI.,  an  act  was  passed  ostensibly  to  prevent  riotous  and  dis- 
orderly elections,  wherein  it  was  stipulated  that  county  electors  should 
thereafter  comprise  only  such  male  residents  of  the  county  as  possessed 
free  land  or  tenement  which  would  rent  for  as  much  as  forty  shillings 
a  year  above  all  charges.2  Leaseholders,  copyholders,  small  free- 
holders, and  all  non-landholders  were  denied  the  suffrage  altogether. 
Even  in  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  the  number  of  forty- 
shilling  freeholders  was  small.  With  the  concentration  of  land  in  fewer 
hands,  incident  to  the  agrarian  revolution  of  the  eighteenth  and  early 
nineteenth  centuries,  it  bore  an  increasingly  diminutive  ratio  to  the  ag- 
gregate county  population,  and  by  1832  the  county  electors  comprised,  as 
a  rule,  only  a  handful  of  large  landed  proprietors.  Within  the  boroughs 
the  franchise  arrangements  existing  at  the  date  mentioned  were  com- 
plicated  and  diverse  beyond  the  possibility  of  general  characterization. 
Many  of  the  boroughs  had  been  accorded  parliamentary  representation 
by  the  most  arbitrary  and  haphazard  methods,  and  at  no  time  prior 
to  1830  was  there  legislation  which  so  much  as  attempted  to  regulate 
the  conditions  of  voting  within  them.  There  were  "scot  and  lot" 
boroughs,  "potwalloper"  boroughs,  burgage  boroughs,  corporation  or 
"dose"  boroughs,  and  "freemen"  boroughs,  to  mention  only  the  more 

1  See  p.  23. 

2  Equivalent  in  present  values  to  £30  or  £40. 


8o  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

important  of  the  types  that  can  be  distinguished.1  In  some  of  these 
the  franchise  was,  at  least  in  theory,  fairly  democratic;  but  in  most  of 
them  it  was  restricted  by  custom  or  local  regulation  to  petty  groups 
of  property-holders  or  taxpayers,  to  members  of  the  municipal  corpora- 
tions, or  even  to  members  of  a  favored  guild.  With  few  exceptions, 
the  borough  franchise  was  illogical,  exclusive,  and  non-expansive. 

84.  Political  Corruption. — A  third  fact  respecting  electoral  conditions 
in  the  earlier  nineteenth  century  is  the  astounding  prevalence  of  ille- 
gitimate political  influence  and  of  sheer  corruption.  Borough  members 
were  very  commonly  not  true  representatives  at  all,  but  nominees  of 
peers,  of  influential  commoners,  or  of  the  government.  It  has  been 
estimated  that  of  the  472  borough  members  not  more  than  137  may 
be  regarded  as  having  been  in  any  proper  sense  elected.  The  remainder 
sat  for  "rotten"  boroughs,  or  for  " pocket"  boroughs  whose  populations 
were  so  meager  or  so  docile  that  the  borough  might,  as  it  were,  be  carried 
about  in  a  magnate's  pocket.  In  the  whole  of  Cornwall  there  were 
only  one  thousand  voters.  Of  the  forty-two  seats  possessed  by  that 
section  of  the  country  twenty  were  controlled  by  seven  peers,  twenty- 
one  were  similarly  controlled  by  eleven  commoners,  and  but  one  was 
filled  by  free  election.  In  1780  it  was  asserted  by  the  Duke  of  Rich- 
mond that  a  clear  majority  of  the  House  of  Commons  was  returned 
by  six  thousand  persons.  Bribery  and  other  forms  of  corruption  were 
so  common  that  only  the  most  shameless  instances  attracted  public 
attention.  Not  merely  votes,  but  seats,  were  bought  and  sold  openly, 
and  it  was  a  matter  of  general  understanding  that  £5,000  to  £7,000  was 
the  amount  which  a  political  aspirant  might  expect  to  be  obliged  to  pay 
a  borough-monger  for  bringing  about  his  election.  Seats  were  not 
infrequently  advertised  for  sale  in  the  public  prints,  and  even  for  hire 
for  a  term  of  years.2 

II.  PARLIAMENTARY  REFORM,  1832-1885 

86.  Demand  for  Reform  Prior  to  1832. — Active  demand  for  a  ref- 
ormation of  the  conditions  that  have  been  described  antedated  the 
nineteenth  century.  As  early  as  1690,  indeed,  John  Locke  denounced 
the  absurdities  of  the  prevailing  electoral  system,3  although  at  the  time 
they  were  inconsiderable  in  comparison  with  what  they  became  by 

1  See  p.  23. 

2  The  monumental  treatise  on  the  House  of  Commons  prior  to  1832  is  E.  Porritt. 
The  Unreformed  House  of  Commons:  Parliamentary  Representation  before  1832, 
2  vols.  (2d  ed.,  Cambridge,  1909).     On  the  prevalence  of  corruption  see  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I.,  224-238,  254-262. 

3  Treatises  of  Government,  II.,  Chap.  13,  §  157. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  8l 

1832;  and  during  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  a  number 
of  interesting  reform  proposals — notably  that  of  the  elder  Pitt  in  1766, 
that  of  Wilkes  in  1776,  and  that  of  the  younger  Pitt  in  1785 — were 
widely  though  fruitlessly  discussed.  In  1780  a  group  of  public-spirited 
men  established  a  Society  for  Constitutional  Information  which  during 
the  ensuing  decade  carried  on  actively  a  propaganda  in  behalf  of  par- 
liamentary regeneration,  and  at  a  meeting  under  the  auspices  of  this 
organization  and  presided  over  by  Charles  James  Fox  a  programme  was 
drawn  up  insisting  upon  innovations  no  less  sweeping  than  the  estab- 
lishment of  manhood  suffrage,  the  creation  of  equal  electoral  districts, 
the  payment  of  members,  the  abolition  of  property  qualifications  for 
members,  and  adoption  of  the  secret  ballot.1  The  revolution  in  France 
and  the  prolonged  contest  with  Napoleon  stayed  the  reform  movement, 
but  after  1815  agitation  was  actively  renewed.  The  economic  and 
social  ills  of  the  nation  in  the  decade  following  the  restoration  of  peace 
were  many,  and  the  idea  took  hold  widely  that  only  through  a  recon- 
stitution  of  Parliament  could  adequate  measures  of  amelioration  be 
attained.  The  disposition  of  the  Tory  governments  of  the  period  was 
to  resist  the  popular  demand,  or,  at  the  most,  to  concede  changes 
which  would  not  affect  the  aristocratic  character  of  the  parliamentary 
chambers.  But  the  reformers  refused  to  be  diverted  from  their  funda- 
mental object,  and  in  the  end  the  forces  of  tradition,  conservatism, 
and  vested  interest  were  obliged  to  give  way.2 

86.  The  Reform  Act  of  1832. — The  first  notable  triumph  was  the 
enactment  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832.  The  changes  wrought  by  this 
memorable  piece  of  legislation  were  two-fold,  the  first  relating  to  the 
distribution  of  seats  in  Parliament,  the  second  to  the  extension  of  the 
franchise.  The  number  of  Scottish  members  was  increased  from  45 
to  54;  that  of  Irish,  from  100  to  105;  that  of  English  and  Welsh  was 
reduced  from  513  to  499.  There  was  no  general  reapportionment  of 
seats,  no  effort  to  bring  the  parliamentary  constituencies  into  precise 
and  uniform  relation  to  the  census  returns.  But  the  most  glaringly 

1  It  is  of  interest  to  observe  that  every  one  of  the  demands  enumerated  found  a 
place  half  a  century  later  among  the  "six  points"  of  the  Chartists.    See  pp.  82-83. 
A  bill  embodying  the  proposed  reforms  was  introduced  by  the  Duke  of  Richmond 
in  1780,  but  met  with  small  favor.    A  second  society — The  Friends  of  the  People — 
was  formed  in  1792  to  promote  the  cause. 

2  The  reform  movement  prior  to  1832  is  admirably  sketched  in  May  and  Holland, 
Constitutional  History  of  England,  I.,  264-280.     See  also  G.  L.  Dickinson,  The 
Development  of  Parliament  during  the  Nineteenth  Century   (London,   1895), 
Chap,  i ;  J.  H.  Rose,  The  Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy  in  Great  Britain  (London, 
1897),  Chap,  i;  C.  B.  R.  Kent,  The  English  Radicals  (London,  1899),  Chaps.  1-2; 
and  W.  P.  Hall,  British  Radicalism,  1791-1797  (New  York,  1912). 


82  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

inequitable  of  former  conditions  were  remedied.  Fifty-six  boroughs, 
of  populations  under  2,000,  were  deprived  entirely  of  representation,1 
thirty-one,  of  populations  between  2,000  and  4,000,  were  reduced  from 
two  members  to  one,  and  one  was  reduced  from  four  members  to  two. 
The  143  seats  thus  made  available  were  redistributed,  and  the  aggregate 
number  (658)  continued  as  before.  Twenty-two  large  boroughs  hitherto 
unrepresented  were  given  two  members  each;  twenty-one  others  were 
given  one  additional  member  each;  and  a  total  of  sixty-five  seats  were 
allotted  to  twenty-seven  of  the  English  counties,  the  remaining  thirteen 
being  given  to  Scotland  and  Ireland.  The  redistribution  had  the  effect 
of  increasing  markedly  the  political  power  of  the  northern  and  north- 
central  portions  of  the  country.  The  alterations  introduced  in  the 
franchise  were  numerous  and  important.  In  the  counties  the  forty- 
shilling  freehold  franchise,  with  some  limitations,  was  retained;  but  the 
voting  privilege  was  extended  to  all  leaseholders  and  copyholders  of 
land  renting  for  as  much  as  £10  a  year,  and  to  tenants-at-will  holding 
an  estate  worth  £50  a  year.  In  the  boroughs  the  right  to  vote  was  con- 
ferred upon  all  "occupiers"  of  houses  worth  £10  a  year.  The  total 
number  of  persons  enfranchised  was  approximately  455,000.  By  basing 
the  franchise  exclusively  upon  the  ownership  or  occupancy  of  property 
of  considerable  value  the  reform  fell  short  of  admitting  to  political 
power  the  great  mass  of  factory  employees  and  of  agricultural  laborers, 
and  for  this  reason  it  was  roundly  opposed  by  the  more  advanced  liberal 
elements.  If,  however,  the  voting  privilege  had  not  been  extended  to 
the  masses  it  had  been  brought  appreciably  nearer  them;  and — what 
was  almost  equally  important — it  had  been  made  substantially  uni- 
form, for  the  first  time,  throughout  the  realm.2 

87.  The  Chartist  Movement. — The  act  of  1832  possessed  none  of 
the  elements  of  finality.  Its  authors  were  in  general  content,  but  with 
the  lapse  of  time  it  was  made  increasingly  manifest  that  the  nation  was 
not.  Political  power  was  still  confined  to  the  magnates  of  the  kingdom, 
the  townsfolk  who  were  able  to  pay  a  £10  annual  rental,  and  the  well- 
to-do  copyholders  and  leaseholders  of  rural  districts.  Whigs  and  Tories 
of  influence  alike  insisted  that  further  innovation  could  not  be  contem- 
plated, but  the  radicals  and  the  laboring  masses  insisted  no  less  reso- 
lutely that  the  reformation  which  had  been  begun  should  be  carried 
to  its  logical  conclusion.  The  demands  upon  which  emphasis  was 
especially  placed  were  gathered  up  in  the  "six  points"  of  the  People's 
Charter,  promulgated  in  final  form  May  8, 1838.  The  six  points  were: 

1  Of  the  fifty-six  all  save  one  had  returned  two  members. 

2  The  more  important  parts  of  the  text  of  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832  are  printed  in 
Robertson,  Statutes,  Cases  and  Documents,  197-212. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  83 

(i)  universal  suffrage  for  males  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  (2)  equal 
electoral  districts,  (3)  voting  by  secret  ballot,  (4)  annual  sessions  of 
Parliament,  (5)  the  abolition  of  property  qualifications  for  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  and  (6)  payment  of  members.  The  barest 
enumeration  of  these  demands  is  sufficient  to  reveal  the  political  back- 
wardness of  the  England  of  three-quarters  of  a  century  ago.  Not 
only  was  the  suffrage  still  severely  restricted  and  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation antiquated  and  unfair;  voting  was  oral  and  public,  and  only 
men  who  were  qualified  by  the  possession  of  property  were  eligible  for 
election.1 

88.  The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1867. — After  a  decade 
of  spectacular  propaganda  Chartism  collapsed,  without  having  attained 
tangible  results.  None  the  less,  the  day  was  not  long  postponed  when 
the  forces  of  reform,  sobered  and  led  by  practical  statesmen,  were  en- 
abled to  realize  one  after  another  of  their  fundamental  purposes.  In 
1858  the  second  Derby  government  acquiesced  in  the  enactment  of  a 
measure  by  which  all  property  qualifications  hitherto  required  of  English, 
Welsh,  and  Irish  members  were  abolished,2  and  after  1860  projects  for 
franchise  extension  were  considered  with  increasing  seriousness.  In  1 867 
the  third  Derby  government,  whose  guiding  spirit  was  Disraeli,  carried 
a  bill  providing  for  an  electoral  reform  of  a  more  thoroughgoing  character 
than  any  persons  save  the  most  uncompromising  of  the  radicals  had 
ever  asked  or  desired.  This  Representation  of  the  People  Act  modified 
but  slightly  the  distribution  of  parliamentary  seats.  The  total  number 
of  seats  remained  unchanged,  as  did  Ireland's  quota  of  105 ;  Scotland's 
apportionment  was  increased  from  54  to  60,  while  that  of  England  and 
Wales  was  decreased  from  499  to  493;  and  in  the  course  of  the  re- 
allotment  that  was  made  eleven  boroughs  lost  the  right  of  representa- 
tion and  thirty-five  others  were  reduced  from  two  members  to  one.  The 
fifty-two  seats  thus  vacated  were  utilized  to  enfranchise  twelve  new 
borough  and  three  university  constituencies  and  to  increase  the  repre- 
sentation of  a  number  of  the  more  populous  towns  and  counties. 

The  most  important  provisions  of  the  Act  were,  however,  those  relat- 
ing to  the  franchise.  In  England  and  Wales  the  county  franchise  was 
guaranteed  to  men  whose  freehold  was  of  the  value  of  forty  shillings  a 
year,  to  copyholders  and  leaseholders  of  the  annual  value  of  £5,  and  to 

1  Rose,  Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy,  Chaps.  6-8;  Kent,  The  English  Radicals, 
Chap.  3;  and  R.  G.  Gammage,  History  of  the  Chartist  Movement,  1837-1854 
(Newcastle-on-Tyne,  1894). 

2  By  law  of  1710  it  had  been  required  that  county  members  should  possess 
landed  property  worth  £600,  and  borough  members  worth  £300,  a  year.    These 
qualifications  were  very  commonly  evaded,  but  they  were  not  abolished  until 
1858. 


84  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

householders  whose  rent  amounted  to  not  less  than  £12  a  year.  The 
twelve  pound  occupation  franchise  was  new,1  and  the  qualification  for 
copyholders  and  leaseholders  was  reduced  from  £10  to  £5;  otherwise  the 
county  franchise  was  unchanged.  The  borough  franchise  was  modified 
profoundly.  Heretofore  persons  were  qualified  to  vote  as  householders 
only  in  the  event  that  their  house  was  worth  as  much  as  £10  a  year. 
Now  the  right  was  conferred  upon  every  man  who  occupied,  as  owner 
or  as  tenant,  for  twelve  months,  a  dwelling-house,  or  any  portion  thereof 
utilized  as  a  separate  dwelling,  without  regard  to  its  value.  Another 
newly  established  franchise  admitted  to  the  voting  privilege  all  lodgers 
occupying  for  as  much  as  a  year  rooms  of  the  clear  value,  unfurnished, 
of  £  10  a  year.  The  effect  of  these  provisions  was  to  enfranchise  the 
urban  working  population,  even  as  the  act  of  1832  had  enfranchised 
principally  the  urban  middle  class.  So  broad,  indeed,  did  the  urban 
franchise  at  this  point  become  that  little  room  was  left  for  its  modifica- 
tion subsequently.  As  originally  planned,  Disraeli's  measure  would 
have  enlarged  the  electorate  by  not  more  than  100,000;  as  amended 
and  carried,  it  practically  doubled  the  voting  population,  raising  it  from 
1,370,793  immediately  prior  to  1867  to  2,526,423  in  i87i.2  By  the  act 
of  1832  the  middle  classes  had  been  enfranchised;  by  that  of  1867 
political  power  was  thrown  in  no  small  degree  into  the  hands  of  the 
masses.  Only  two  large  groups  of  people  remained  now  outside  the 
pale  of  political  influence,  i.  e.,  the  agricultural  laborers  and  the  miners. 
89.  The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1884. — That  the  quali- 
fications for  voting  in  one  class  of  constituencies  should  be  conspicuously 
more  liberal  than  in  another  class  was  an  anomaly,  and  hi  a  period 
when  anomalies  were  at  last  being  eliminated  from  the  English  electoral 
system  remedy  could  not  be  long  delayed.  February  5,  1884,  the 
second  Gladstone  ministry  redeemed  a  campaign  pledge  by  introducing 
a  bill  extending  to  the  counties  the  same  electoral  regulations  that  had 
been  established  in  1867  in  the  towns.  The  measure  passed  the  Com- 
mons, but  was  rejected  by  the  Lords  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
not  accompanied  by  a  bill  for  the  redistribution  of  seats.  By  an  agree- 
ment between  the  two  houses  a  threatened  deadlock  was  averted,  and 
the  upshot  was  that  before  the  end  of  the  year  the  Lords  accepted 
the  Government's  bill,  on  the  understanding  that  its  enactment  was  to 
be  followed  immediately  by  the  introduction  of  a  redistribution  measure. 

1  It  may  be  regarded,  however,  as  taking  the  place  of  the  £50  rental  franchise. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed  that  these  figures  are  for  the  United  Kingdom  as  a  whole, 
embracing  the  results  not  merely  of  the  act  of  1867  applying  to  England  and  Wales 
but  of  the  two  acts  of  1868  introducing  similar,  though  not  identical,  changes  in 
Scotland  and  Ireland. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  85 

The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1884  is  in  form  disjointed  and 
difficult  to  understand,  but  the  effect  of  it  is  easy  to  state.  By  it  there 
was  established  a  uniform  household  franchise  and  a  uniform  lodger 
franchise  in  all  counties  and  boroughs  of  the  United  Kingdom.  The 
occupation  of  any  land  or  tenement  of  a  clear  annual  value  of  £10  was 
made  a  qualification  in  boroughs  and  counties  alike;  and  persons  occupy- 
ing a  house  by  virtue  of  office  or  employment  were  to  be  deemed  "occu- 
piers" for  the  purpose  of  the  act.  The  measure  doubled  the  county 
electorate  and  increased  the  total  electorate  by  some  2,000,000,  or  ap- 
proximately forty  per  cent.  Its  most  important  effect  was  to  enfranchise 
the  workingman  in  the  country,  as  the  act  of  1867  had  enfranchised  the 
workingman  in  the  town. 

90.  The  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act,  1886.— In  1885,  the  two  great 
parties  co-operating,  there  was  passed  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act 
which  had  been  promised.  Now  for  the  first  time  in  English  history 
attempt  was  made  to  apportion  representation  in  the  House  of  Commons 
in  something  like  strict  accordance  with  population  densities.  In  the 
first  place,  the  total  number  of  members  was  increased  from  658 1  to  670, 
and  of  the  number  103  were  allotted  to  Ireland,  72  to  Scotland,  and  495 
to  England  and  Wales.  In  the  next  place,  the  method  by  which  former 
redistributions  had  been  accomplished,  i.  e.,  transferring  seats  more  or 
less  arbitrarily  from  flagrantly  over-represented  boroughs  to  more  pop- 
ulous boroughs  and  counties,  was  replaced  by  a  method  based  upon  the 
principle  of  equal  electoral  constituencies,  each  returning  one  member. 
In  theory  a  constituency  was  made  to  comprise  50,000  people.  Boroughs 
containing  fewer  than  15,000  inhabitants  were  disfranchised  as  boroughs, 
becoming  for  electorial  purposes  portions  of  the  counties  in  which  they 
were  situated.  Boroughs  of  between  15,000  and  50,000  inhabitants 
were  allowed  to  retain,  or  if  previously  unrepresented  were  given,  one 
member  each.  Those  of  between  50,000  and  165,000  were  given  two 
members,  and  those  of  more  than  165,000  three,  with  one  in  addition 
for  every  additional  50,000  people.  The  same  general  principle  was 
followed  in  the  counties.  Thus  the  city  of  Liverpool,  which  prior  to 
1885  sent  three  members  to  Parliament,  fell  into  nine  distinct  con- 
stituencies, each  returning  one  member,  and  the  great  northern  county 
of  Lancashire,  which  since  1867  had  been  divided  into  four  portions 
each  returning  two  members,  was  now  split  into  twenty-three  divisions 
with  one  member  each.  The  boroughs  which  prior  to  1885  elected  two 
members,  and  at  the  redistribution  retained  that  number,  remained 
single  constituencies  for  the  election  of  those  two  members.  Of  these 

1  Strictly  652,  since  after  1867  four  boroughs,  returning  six  members,  were  dis- 
franchised. 


86  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

boroughs  there  are  to-day  twenty-three.  They,  together  with  the  city 
of  London  and  the  three  universities  of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  Dublin, 
comprise  the  existing  twenty-seven  two-member  constituencies.  By 
partition  of  the  counties,  of  the  old  boroughs  having  more  than  two 
members,  and  of  the  new  boroughs  with  only  two  members,  all  save 
these  twenty-seven  constituencies  have  been  erected  into  separate, 
single-member  electoral  divisions,  each  with  its  own  name  and  identity.1 

III.  THE  FRANCHISE  AND  THE  ELECTORAL  QUESTIONS  or  TO-DAY 

91.  The  Franchise  as  It  Is. — By  the  measures  of  1884  and  1885  the 
House  of  Commons  was  placed  upon  a  broadly  democratic  basis. 
Both  measures  stand  to-day  upon  the  statute-books,  and  neither  has 
been  amended  in  any  important  particular.  With  respect  to  the  exist- 
ing franchises  there  are  two  preponderating  facts.  One  of  them  is  that 
individuals,  as  such,  do  not  possess  the  privilege  of  voting;  on  the 
contrary,  the  possession  of  the  privilege  is  determined  all  but  invariably 
in  relation  to  the  ownership  or  occupation  of  property.  The  other  is 
that  the  franchise  system,  while  substantially  uniform  throughout 
the  kingdom,  is  none  the  less  the  most  complicated  in  Europe.  There 
are  three  important  franchises  which  are  universal  and  two  which  are 
not.  In  the  first  group  are  included:  (i)  occupancy,  as  owner  or  tenant, 
of  land  or  tenement  of  a  clear  yearly  value  of  £10;  (2)  occupancy,  as 
owner  or  tenant,  of  a  dwelling-house,  or  part  of  a  house  used  as  a 

1  On  the  reforms  of  the  period  1832-1885  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X,, 
Chap.  18,  and  XI,,  Chap.  12;  Dickinson,  Development  of  Parliament,  Chap.  2;  Rose, 
Rise  and  Growth  of  Democracy,  Chaps.  2,  10-13;  Marriott,  English  Political  Insti- 
tutions, Chap.  10.  An  excellent  survey  is  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History 
of  England,  I.,  Chap.  6,  and  III.,  Chap.  i.  Mention  may  be  made  of  H.  Cox,  A  His- 
tory of  the  Reform  Bills  of  1866  and  1867  (London,  1868);  J.  S.  Mill,  Considerations 
on  Representative  Government  (London,  1861);  and  T.  Hare,  The  Election  of  Rep- 
resentatives, Parliamentary  and  Municipal  (3d  ed.,  London,  1865).  An  excellent 
survey  by  a  Swiss  scholar  is  contained  in  C.  Borgeaud,  The  Rise  of  Modern  De- 
mocracy in  Old  and  New  England,  trans,  by  B.  Hill  (London,  1894),  and  a  useful 
volume  is  J.  Murdock,  A  History  of  Constitutional  Reform  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland  (Glasgow,  1885).  The  various  phases  of  the  subject  are  covered,  of  course, 
in  the  general  histories  of  the  period,  notably  S.  Walpole,  History  of  England  from 
the  Conclusion  of  the  Great  War  in  1815,  6  vols.  (new  ed.,  London,  1902);  W.  N. 
Molesworth,  History  of  England  from  the  year  1830-1874,  3  vols.  (London,  1874); 
J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1875-1894);  H.  Paul,  History  of 
Modern  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1904-1906);  and  S.  Low  and  L.  C.  Sanders,  His- 
tory of  England  during  the  Reign  of  Victoria  (London,  1907).  Three  biographical 
works  are  of  special  service:  S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell,  2  vols.  (London, 
1889);  J-  Morley,  Life  of  William  E.  Gladstone,  3  vols.  (London,  1903);  and  W.  F, 
Monypenny,  Life  of  Benjamin  Disraeli,  Earl  of  Beaconsfield,  vols.  1-2  (London  and 
New  York,  1910-1912). 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  87 

separate  dwelling,  without  regard  to  its  value;  and  (3)  occupancy  of 
lodgings  of  the  value,  unfurnished,  of  £10  a  year.  The  two  franchises 
which  are  not  universal  are  (i)  ownership  of  land  of  forty  shillings 
yearly  value  or  occupation  of  land  under  certain  other  specified  condi- 
tions— this  being  applicable  only  to  counties  and,  to  a  small  extent,  to 
boroughs  which  are  counties  in  themselves;  and  (2)  residence  of  free- 
men in  those  towns  in  which  they  had  a  right  to  vote  prior  to  1832. 
The  conditions  and  exceptions  by  which  these  various  franchises  are 
attended  are  so  numerous  that  few  people  in  England  save  lawyers 
make  a  pretense  of  knowing  them  all,  and  the  volume  of  litigation 
which  arises  from  the  attempted  distinction  between  "householder" 
and  "lodger,"  and  from  other  technicalities  of  the  subject,  is  enormous. 
Voters  must  be  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  there  are  several  com- 
plicated requirements  in  respect  to  the  period  of  occupation  of  land 
and  of  residence,  and  likewise  in  respect  to  the  fulfillment  of  the 
formalities  of  registration.1  There  are  also  various  incidental  dis- 
qualifications. No  peer,  other  than  a  peer  of  Ireland  who  is  in  posses- 
sion of  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons,  may  vote;  persons  employed 
as  election  agents,  canvassers,  clerks,  or  messengers  may  not  vote,  nor 
may  the  returning  officers  of  the  constituencies,  save  when  necessary 
to  break  a  tie  between  two  candidates;  and  aliens,  felons,  and,  under 
stipulated  conditions,  persons  in  receipt  of  public  charity,  are  similarly 
debarred.  In  the  aggregate,  however,  the  existing  franchises  ap- 
proach measurably  near  manhood  suffrage.  It  has  been  computed 
that  the  ratio  of  electors  to  population  is  approximately  one  in 
six,  whereas,  the  normal  proportion  of  males  above  the  age  of  twenty- 
one,  making  no  allowance  for  paupers,  criminals,  and  other  persons 
commonly  disqualified  by  law,  is  somewhat  less  than  one  in  four. 
The  only  classes  of  adult  males  at  present  excluded  regularly  from 
the  voting  privilege  are  domestic  servants,  bachelors  living  with  their 
parents  and  occupying  no  premises  on  their  own  account,  and  persons 
whose  change  of  abode  periodically  deprives  them  of  a  vote. 

"The  present  condition  of  the  franchise,"  asserts  Lowell,  "is,  indeed, 
historical  rather  than  rational.  It  is  complicated,  uncertain,  expensive 
in  the  machinery  required,  and  excludes  a  certain  number  of  people 
whom  there  is  no  reason  for  excluding,  while  it  admits  many  people  who 
ought  not  to  be  admitted  if  any  one  is  to  be  debarred."  2  During  the 

1  On  the  process  of  registration  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution, 
I.,  134-137,  and  M.  Caudel,  L'enregistrement  des  electeurs  en  Angleterre,  in  An- 
nales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Sept.,  1906. 

2  Government  of  England,  I,,  213.    On  the  franchise  system  see  Anson,  Law  and 
Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  Chap.  4  and  Lowell,  op.  cit.,  I.,  Chap.  9. 


88  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

past  generation  there  has  been  demand  from  a  variety  of  quarters  that 
the  conditions  of  the  franchise,  and,  indeed,  the  electoral  system  as 
a  whole,  be  overhauled,  co-ordinated,  and  liberalized;  and  at  the 
date  of  writing  (1912)  there  is  pending  in  Parliament  a  measure  of 
fundamental  importance  looking  in  this  direction.  The  electoral 
changes  which  have  been  most  widely  advocated,  at  least  in  recent 
years,  are  four  in  number:  (i)  a  fresh  apportionment  of  seats  in 
the  Commons  in  accordance  with  the  distribution  of  population; 
(2)  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  classes  of  men  at  present  de- 
barred; (3)  the  abolition  of  the  plural  vote;  and  (4)  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  women. 

92.  The  Question  of  Redistribution  of  Seats. — As  has  been  pointed 
out,  the  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act  of  1885  established  constituencies 
in  which  there  was  some  approach  to  equality.  The  principle  was  far 
from  completely  carried  out.  For  example,  the  newly  created  borough 
of  Chelsea  contained  upwards  of  90,000  people,  while  the  old  borough 
of  Windsor  had  fewer  than  20,000.  But  the  inequalities  left  untouched 
by  the  act  were  slight  in  comparison  with  those  which  have  arisen  during 
a  quarter  of  a  century  in  which  there  has  been  no  reapportionment 
whatsoever.  In  1901  the  least  populous  constituency  of  the  United 
Kingdom,  the  borough  of  Newry  in  Ireland,  contained  but  13,137 
people,  while  the  southern  division  of  the  county  of  Essex  contained 
217,030;  yet  each  was  represented  by  a  single  member.  This  means, 
of  course,  a  gross  disparity  in  the  weight  of  popular  votes,  and,  in  effect, 
the  over-representation  of  certain  sets  of  opinions  and  interests.  In 
January,  1902,  an  amendment  to  a  parliamentary  address  urging 
the  desirability  of  redistribution  was  warmly  debated  in  the  Commons, 
and,  on  the  eve  of  its  fall,  in  the  summer  of  1905,  the  Balfour  govern- 
ment submitted  a  Redistribution  Resolution  designed  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  "one  vote,  one  value"  propagandists.  At  this  time 
it  was  pointed  out  that  whereas  immediately  after  the  reform  of  1885 
the  greatest  ratio  of  disparity  among  the  constituencies  was  5.8 
to  i,  in  twenty  years  it  had  risen  to  16.5  to  i.  The  plan  proposed 
provided  for  the  fixing  of  the  average  population  to  be  represented  by 
a  member  at  from  50,000  to  65,000,  the  giving  of  eighteen  additional 
seats  to  England  and  Wales  and  of  four  to  Scotland,  the  reduction  of 
Ireland's  quota  by  twenty-two,  and  such  further  readjustments  as 
would  bring  down  the  ratio  of  greatest  disparity  to  6.8  to  i.  Under  a 
ruling  of  the  Speaker  to  the  effect  that  the  resolution  required  to  be 
divided  into  eight  or  nine  parts,  to  be  debated  separately,  the  proposal 
was  withdrawn.  It  was  announced  that  a  bill  upon  the  subject  would 
be  brought  in,  but  the  early  retirement  of  the  ministry  rendered  this 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  89 

impossible,  and  throughout  succeeding  years  this  aspect  of  electoral 
reform  yielded  precedence  to  other  matters.1 

A  special  difficulty  inherent  in  the  subject  is  imposed  by  the  peculiar 
situation  of  Ireland.  By  reason  of  the  decline  of  Ireland's  population 
during  the  past  half  century  that  portion  of  the  United  Kingdom  has 
come  to  be  markedly  over-represented  at  Westminster.  The  average 
Irish  commoner  sits  for  but  44,147  people,  while  the  average  English 
member  represents  66,971.  If  a  new  distribution  were  to  be  made  in 
strict  proportion  to  members  Ireland  would  lose  30  seats  and  Wales 
three,  while  Scotland  would  gain  one  and  England  about  30.  It  is 
contended  by  the  Irish  people,  however,  that  the  Act  of  Union  of 
1800,  whereby  Ireland  was  guaranteed  as  many  as  one  hundred  parlia- 
mentary seats,  is  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty,  whose  stipulations  cannot 
be  violated  save  by  the  consent  of  both  contracting  parties;  and  so  long 
as  the  Irish  are  not  allowed  a  separate  parliament  they  may  be  depended 
upon  to  resist,  as  they  did  resist  in  1905,  any  proposal  contemplating 
the  reduction  of  their  voting  strength  in  the  parliament  of  the  United 
Kingdom. 

93.  The  Problem  of  the  Plural  Vote. — Aside  from  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  women,  the  principal  suffrage  questions  in  Great  Britain  to-day 
are  those  pertaining  to  the  conferring  of  the  voting  privilege  upon 
adult  males  who  are  still  debarred,  the  abolition  of  the  plural  vote,  and 
a  general  simplification  and  unification  of  franchise  arrangements. 
The  problem  of  the  plural  vote  is  an  old  one.  Under  existing  law  an 
elector  may  not  vote  more  than  once  in  a  single  constituency,  nor  in 
more  than  one  division  of  the  same  borough;  but  aside  from  this,  and 
except  in  so  far  as  is  not  prohibited  by  residence  requirements,  he  is 
entitled  to  vote  in  every  constituency  in  which  he  possesses  a  qualifi- 
cation. In  the  United  States  and  in  the  majority  of  European  countries 
a  man  is  possessed  of  but  one  vote,  and  any  arrangement  other  than  this 
would  seem  to  contravene  the  principle  of  civic  equality  which  lies  at 
the  root  of  popular  government.  In  England  there  have  been  repeated 
attempts  to  bring  about  the  establishment  of  an  unvarying  rule  of  "  one 
man,  one  vote,"  but  never  as  yet  with  success.  The  number  of  plural 
voters — some  525,000 — is  relatively  small,  but  when  it  is  remembered 
that  a  single  voter  may  cast  during  a  parliamentary  election  as  many 
as  fifteen  or  twenty  votes  it  will  be  observed  that  the  number  quite 
suffices  to  turn  the  scale  in  many  closely  contested  constituencies. 
An  overwhelming  proportion  of  the  plural  voters  are  identified  with 
the  Conservative  party,  whence  it  arises  that  the  Liberals  are,  and  long 
have  been,  hostile  to  the  privilege.  Following  the  Liberal  triumph 
1  Annual  Register  (1905),  193. 


90  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

at  the  elections  of  1906  a  Plural  Voting  Bill  was  introduced  requiring 
that  every  elector  possessed  of  more  than  one  vote  should  be  registered 
in  the  constituency  of  his  choice  and  in  no  other  one.  The  measure 
passed  the  Commons,  by  a  vote  of  333  to  104,  but  the  Conservative 
majority  in  the  Lords  compassed  its  defeat,  alleging  that  while  it  was 
willing  to  consider  a  complete  scheme  of  electoral  reform  the  proposed 
bill  was  not  of  such  character.1 

94.  The  Franchise^  pj"  "f  iqjQ — Soon  after  the  final  enactment, 
in  August,  1911,  of  the  Parliament  Bill  whereby  the  complete  ascen- 
dancy of  the  Commons  was  secured  in  both  finance  and  legislation 2  the 
Liberal  government  of  Mr.  Asquith  made  known  its  intention  to  bring 
forward  at  an  early  date  a  comprehensive  measure  of  franchise  reform. 
During  the  winter  of  1911-1912  the  project  was  formulated,  and  in  the 
early  summer  of  1912  the  bill  was  introduced.  The  adoption  of  the 
measure  in  its  essentials  is  not  improbable,  although  at  the  date  of 
writing 3  it  is  by  no  means  assured.  In  the  main,  the  bill  makes  pro- 
vision for  three  reforms.  In  the  first  place,  it  substitutes  for  the  present 
complicated  and  illogical  network  of  suffrages  a  simple  residential  or 
occupational  qualification,  thereby  extending  the  voting  privilege  to 
practically  all  adult  males.  In  the  second  place,  it  simplifies  the  process 
of  registration  and,  in  effect,  enfranchises  large  numbers  of  men  who  in 
the  past  have  been  unable  to  vote  because  of  change  of  residence  or  of 
the  difficulties  of  the  registration  process.  Finally,  it  abolishes  abso- 
lutely both  the  plural  vote  and  the  separate  representation  of  the  uni- 
versities. The  effect  of  the  first  two  of  these  provisions,  it  is  estimated, 
would  be  to  enlarge  the  electorate  by  2,500,000  votes,  that  of  the  third, 
to  reduce  it  by  upwards  of  600,000;  4  so  that  the  net  result  of  the  three 
would  be  to  raise  an  existing  electorate  of  eight  millions  to  one  of  ten 
millions.  A  total  of  twenty-eight  franchise  statutes  are  totally,  and 
forty-four  others  are  partially,  repealed  by  the  bill.  The  ground  upon 
which  the  measure,  in  its  earlier  stages,  was  attacked  principally  was 
its  lack  of  provision  for  a  redistribution  of  seats.  The  defense  of  the 
Government  has  been  that,  while  the  imperative  need  of  redistribution 
is  recognized,  such  redistribution  can  be  effected  only  after  it  shall  be 

1  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,,  48-49.    It  may  be 
noted  that  an  able  royal  commission,  appointed  in  December,  1908,  to  study  for- 
eign electoral  systems  and  to  recommend  modifications  of  the  English  system,  re- 
ported in  1910  adversely  to  the  early  adoption  of  any  form  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation. 

2  See  pp.  110-113. 

3  October,  1912. 

4  The  number  of  plural  voters  is  placed  at  525,000;  that  of  graduates  who  elect 
the  university  representatives,  at  49,614. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  91 

known  precisely  what  the  franchise  arrangements  of  the  kingdom  are 
to  be.1 

96.  The  Question  of  Woman's  Suffrage.— It  will  be  observed  that  the 
Franchise  Bill  restricts  the  franchise  to  adult  males.  The  measure  was 
shaped  deliberately,  however,  to  permit  the  incorporation  of  an  amend- 
ment providing  for  the  enfranchisement  of  women.  It  is  a  fact  not 
familiarly  known  that  English  women  of  requisite  qualifications  were 
at  one  time  in  possession  of  the  suffrage  at  national  elections.  They 
were  not  themselves  allowed  to  vote,  but  a  woman  was  privileged  to 
pass  on  her  qualifications  temporarily  to  any  man,  and,  prior  to  the 
seventeenth  century,  the  privilege  was  occasionally  exercised.  It  was  not 
indeed,  until  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  that  the  law  of  elections,  by  in- 
troducing the  phrase  "male  persons,"  in  effect  vested  the  parliamentary 
franchise  exclusively  in  men.2  The  first  notable  attempt  made  in 
Parliament  to  restore  and  extend  the  female  franchise  was  that  of  John 
Stuart  Mill  in  1867.  His  proposed  amendment  to  the  reform  bill  of 
that  year  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  196  to  73.  In  1870  a  woman's 
suffrage  measure  drafted  by  Dr.  Pankhurst  and  introduced  in  the 
Commons  by  John  Bright  passed  its  second  reading  by  a  majority  of 
thirty-three,  but  was  subsequently  rejected.  During  the  seventies 
and  early  eighties  a  vigorous  propaganda  was  maintained  and  almost 
every  session  produced  its  crop  of  woman's  suffrage  bills.  A  deter- 
mined attempt  was  made  to  secure  the  inclusion  of  a  woman's  suffrage 
clause  in  the  Reform  Bill  of  1884.  The  proposed  amendment  was  sup- 
ported very  generally  by  the  press,  but  in  consequence  of  a  threat  by 
Gladstone  to  the  effect  that  if  the  amendment  were  carried  the  entire 
measure  would  be  withdrawn  the  project  was  abandoned.  The  next 
chapter  of  importance  in  the  history  of  the  movement  was  inaugurated 
by  the  organization,  in  1903,  of  the  Women's  Social  and  Political 
Union.  In  1904  a  suffrage  bill  was  introduced  but  failed  to  become  law. 
Within  the  past  decade,  however,  the  cause  has  made  substantial 
headway,  and  by  the  spectacular  character  which  it  has  assumed  it 
has  attracted  wide  attention.  In  March,  1912,  a  Woman's  Enfranchise- 
ment measure  was  rejected  in  the  House  of  Commons  by  the  narrow 
margin  of  222  to  208  votes.  Premier  Asquith  is  opposed  to  female 
enfranchisement,  but  his  colleagues  in  the  ministry  are  almost  evenly 
divided  upon  the  issue,  and  it  is  not  inconceivable  that  a  woman's 
suffrage  measure  may  be  carried  through  in  the  guise  of  an  amendment 
to  the  pending  Franchise  Bill.  If  it  were  to  be,  and  the  qualifications 

1  A  timely  volume  is  J.  King  and  F.  W.  Raffety,  Our  Electoral  System;  the 
Demand  for  Reform  (London,  1912). 

2  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III.,  61. 


92  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

should  be  made  identical  with  those  of  men,  the  number  of  women 
voters  would  be  approximately  io,5oo,ooo.1 

96.  Qualifications  for  Election. — The  regulations  governing  the  quali- 
fications essential  for  election  to  Parliament  are  to-day,  on  the  whole, 
simple  and  liberal.     The  qualification  of  residence  was  replaced  in  the 
eighteenth  century  by  a  property  qualification;  but,  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  in  1858  this  likewise  was  swept  away.   Oaths  of  allegiance  and  oaths 
imposing  religious  tests  once  operated  to  debar  many,  but  all  that  is 
now  required  of  a  member  is  a  very  simple  oath  or  affirmation  of  allegi- 
ance, in  a  form  compatible  with  any  shade  of  religious  belief  or  unbelief. 
Any  male  British  subject  who  is  of  age  is  qualified  for  election,  unless  he 
belongs  to  one  of  a  few  small  groups — notably  peers  (except  Irish); 
clergy  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  Church  of  England,  and  the 
Church  of  Scotland;  certain  office-holders;  bankrupts;  and  persons 
convicted  of  treason,  felony,  or  corrupt  practices.    A  member  is  not 
required  to  be  a  resident  of  the  electoral  district  which  he  represents. 
Once  elected,  a  man  properly  qualified  cannot  escape  membership  by 
resignation.    He  may  be  expelled,  but  the  only  means  by  which  he  can 
retire  from  the  House  voluntarily  is  the  acceptance  of  some  public 
post  whose  occupant  is  ipso  facto  disqualified.    To  serve  this  end  two 
or  three  sinecures  are  maintained,  the  best  known  being  the  stewardship 
of  the  Chiltern  Hundreds.    The  member  who  desires  to  give  up  his 
seat  accomplishes  his  purpose  by  applying  for  one  of  these  offices,  re- 
ceiving it,  and  after  having  disqualified  himself,  resigning  it. 

IV.  ELECTORAL  PROCEDURE  AND  REGULATIONS 

97.  Writs  and  Election  Days. — When  a  parliament  is  dissolved  the 
royal  proclamation  wherein  the  dissolution  is  declared  expresses  the 
desire  of  the  crown  to  have  the  advice  of  the  people  and  announces 
the  sovereign's  will  and  pleasure  to  call  a  new  parliament.    With  this 
proclamation  as  a  warrant,  the  chancellors  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
forthwith  issue  writs  of  election,  addressed  to  the  returning  officers  of  the 
counties  and  boroughs,  i.  e.,  in  all  Scotch  and  Irish  constituencies  and  in 
the  English  counties  the  sheriffs,  or  their  deputies,  and  in  the  English 
boroughs  the  mayors.    The  form  of  these  writs,  as  well  as  the  nature 
of  the  electoral  procedure  generally,  is  prescribed  in  the  Parliamentary 
and  Municipal  Elections  Act,  commonly  known  as  the  Ballot  Act,  of 

1  K.  Schirmacher,  The  Modern  Woman's  Rights  Movement,  trans,  by  C.  C. 
Eckhardt  (New  York,  1912),  58-96;  B.  Mason,  The  Story  of  the  Woman's  Suffrage 
Movement  (London,  1911);  E.  S.  Pankhurst,  The  Suffragette;  the  History  of  the 
Woman's  Militant  Suffrage  Movement,  1905-1910  (London,  1911).  The  subject 
is  surveyed  briefly  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History,  III,,  59-66. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  93 

1872. 1  Upon  receipt  of  the  proper  writ  the  returning  officer  gives  notice 
of  the  day  and  place  of  the  election,  and  of  the  poll  if  it  is  known  that 
the  election  will  be  contested.  In  the  counties  the  election  must  take 
place  within  nine  days,  in  the  boroughs  within  four  days,  after  receipt 
of  the  writ,  but  within  these  limits  the  date  is  fixed  in  each  constituency 
by  the  returning  officer.  What  actually  happens  on  election  day  is: 
(i)  all  candidates  for  seats  are  placed  formally  in  nomination;  (2)  if 
within  an  hour  of  the  time  fixed  for  the  election  the  number  of  nomi- 
nated candidates  does  not  exceed  the  number  of  places  to  be  filled,  the 
election  of  these  candidates  is  forthwith  declared;  and  (3)  if  there  is  a 
contest  the  election  is  postponed  to  a  polling  day,  to  be  fixed  by  the 
returning  officer,  in  the  counties  from  two  to  six,  and  in  the  boroughs 
not  more  than  three,  days  distant. 

98.  The  Polling. — Prior  to  1872  candidates  were  nominated  viva  wee 
at  the  "hustings,"  an  outdoor  platform  erected  for  the  purpose;  but 
nowadays  nominations  are  made  in  writing.  It  is  required  that  a 
candidate  shall  be  proposed  by  a  registered  elector  of  the  constituency 
and  that  his  nomination  shall  be  assented  to  formally  by  nine  other 
electors.  The  number  of  uncontested  elections  is  invariably  large 
(especially  in  Ireland,  where,  in  many  instances,  it  is  useless  to  oppose 
a  candidate  to  the  Nationalists),  the  proportion  reaching  sometimes 
one-fourth,  and  even  one-third.  Polling  is  completed  within  an  in- 
dividual constituency  during  the  course  of  a  single  day,  the  hours  being 
from  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening, 
but  under  the  arrangements  that  have  been  described  it  falls  out  that 
a  national  election  is  extended  invariably  through  a  period  of  more 
than  two  weeks.  The  system  operates,  of  course,  to  the  advantage  of 
the  plural  voter,  who  is  enabled  to  present  himself  at  the  polls  from  day 
to  day  in  widely  separated  constituencies.  For  the  convenience  of 
voters  constituencies  are  divided  regularly  into  districts,  or  precincts. 
When  the  properly  qualified  and  registered  elector  appears  at  the  polls 
a  ballot  paper  is  presented  to  him  containing  the  names  of  the  candidates. 
He  takes  this  to  a  screened  compartment  and  places  a  cross-mark 
opposite  the  name  or  names  of  those  for  whom  he  desires  to  vote,  after 
which  the  paper  is  deposited  in  a  box.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  polling, 
the  boxes  are  transmitted  to  the  returning  officer  of  the  constituency, 
the  votes  are  counted,  and  the  result  is  declared.  The  writ  which 
served  as  the  returning  officer's  authority  is  indorsed  with  a  certificate 
of  the  election  and  returned  to  the  clerk  of  the  Crown  in  Chancery. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  hi  the  universities  the  Ballot  Act 
does  not  apply.  In  these  constituencies  an  elector  may  deliver  his 

1  For  the  form  of  the  writ  see  Alison,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  57. 


94  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

vote  orally,  or  he  may  transmit  it  by  proxy  from  his  place  of  resi- 
dence.1 

99.  Frequency  of  Elections:  the  Campaign. — General  elections  do 
not  take  place  in  Great  Britain  with  periodic  regularity.  The  only 
positive  requirement  in  the  matter  is  that  an  election  must  be  ordered 
when  a  parliament  has  attained  the  maximum  lifetime  allowed  it  by 
law.  Prior  to  1694  there  was  no  stipulation  upon  this  subject  and  the 
king  could  keep  a  parliament  in  existence  as  long  as  he  liked.  Charles 
II.  retained  for  seventeen  years  the  parliament  called  at  his  accession. 
From  1694  to  1716,  however,  the  maximum  term  of  a  parliament  was 
three  years;  from  1716  to  1911  it  was  seven  years;  to-day  it  is  five  years.2 
In  point  of  fact,  parliaments  never  last  through  the  maximum  period, 
and  an  average  interval  of  three  or  four  years  between  elections  has  been 
the  rule.  In  most  instances  an  election  is  precipitated  more  or  less 
unexpectedly  on  an  appeal  to  the  country  by  a  defeated  ministry,  and 
it  not  infrequently  happens  that  an  election  turns  all  but  completely 
upon  a  single  issue  and  thus  assumes  the  character  of  a  national  referen- 
dum upon  the  subject  in  hand.  This  was  pre-eminently  true  of  the  last 
general  election,  that  of  December,  1910,  at  which  the  country  was 
asked  to  sustain  the  Asquith  government  in  its  purpose  to  curb  the 
independent  authority  of  the  House  of  Lords.  In  any  event,  the  cam- 
paign by  which  the  election  is  preceded  is  brief,  although  it  continues 
throughout  the  electoral  period,  and,  if  the  outcome  is  doubtful,  tends 
to  increase  rather  than  to  diminish  in  intensity.  Appeals  to  .the,  voters 
are  made  principally  through  public^speaking,  the  controversial  and 
illustratsg^rjress,  the  circulation  of  rmmphlets  andjiaijdhills,  parades 
anoTlnass-meeTllIgs,  and  the  generous  use  of  placards,  cartoons,  and 
other  devices  designed  to  attract  and  focus  attention.  Plans  are  laid, 

1  On  electoral  procedure  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  10;  M. 
MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parliament  (London,  1897),  24-50;  H.  J.  Bushby, 
Manual  of  the  Practice  of  Elections  for  the  United  Kingdom  (4th  ed.,  London, 
1874);  W.  Woodings,  The  Conduct  and  Management  of  Parliamentary  Elections 
(4th  ed.,  London,  1900);  E.  T.  Powell,  The  Essentials  of  Self-Government,  Eng- 
land and  Wales  (London,  1909);  P.  J.  Blair,  A  Handbook  of  Parliamentary  Elec- 
tions (Edinburgh,  1909);  and  H.  Eraser,  The  Law  of  Parliamentary  Elections  and 
Election  Petitions  (2d  ed.,  London,  1910).     A  volume  filled  with  interesting  in- 
formation is  J.  Grego,  History  of  Parliamentary  Elections  and  Electioneering  from 
the  Stuarts  to  Queen  Victoria  (new  ed.,  London,  1892).    The  monumental  work 
upon  the  entire  subject  is  M.  Powell  (ed.),  Rogers  on  Elections,  3  vols.  (i6th  ed., 
London,  1897). 

2  The  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1867  made  the  duration  of  a  parlia- 
ment independent  of  a  demise  of  the  crown.    The  text  of  the  Septennial  Act  and 
that  of  the  Lords'  Protest  against  the  measure  are  printed  in  Robertson,  Statutes, 
Cases,  and  Documents,  117-119. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS  95 

arguments  are  formulated,  and  leadership  in  public  appeal  is  assumed 
by  the  members  of  the  Government,  led  by  the  premier,  and,  on  the 
other  side,  by  the  men  who  are  the  recognized  leaders  of  the  parlia- 
mentary Opposition.1 

100.  The  Regulation  of  Electoral  Expenditure — Time  was,  and 
within  the  memory  of  men  still  living,  when  an  English  parliamentary 
election  was  attended  by  corrupt  practices  so  universal  and  so  shame- 
less as  to  appear  almost  more  ludicrous  than  culpable.  Voters  as  a 
matter  of  course  accepted  the  bribes  that  were  tendered  them  and  ate 
and  drank  and  smoked  and  rollicked  at  the  candidate's  expense  through- 
out the  electoral  period  and  were  considered  men  of  conscience  indeed 
if  they  did  not  end  by  going  over  to  the  opposition.  The  notorious 
Northampton  election  of  1768,  in  the  course  of  which  a  body  of  voters 
numbering  under  a  thousand  were  the  recipients  of  hospitalities  from 
the  backers  of  three  candidates  which  aggregated  upwards  of  a  million 
pounds,  was,  of  course,  exceptional;  but  the  history  of  countless  other 
cases  differed  from  it  only  in  the  amounts  laid  out.  To-day  an  alto- 
gether different  state  of  things  obtains.  From  having  been  one  of  the 
most  corrupt,  Great  Britain  has  become  one  of  the  most  exemplary  of 
nations  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  proprieties  of  electoral  procedure. 
The  Ballot  Act  of  1872  contained  provisions  calculated  to  strengthen 
pre-existing  corrupt  practices  acts,  but  the  real  turning  point  was  the 
adoption  of  the  comprehensive  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of 
1883.  By  this  measure  bribery  (in  seven  enumerated  forms)  and  treat- 
ing were  made  punishable  by  imprisonment  or  fine  and,  under  varying 
conditions,  political  disqualification.  The  number  and  functions  of  the 
persons  who  may  be  employed  by  the  candidate  to  assist  in  a  campaign 
were  prescribed,  every  canoUdate  being  required  to  have  a  single  author- 
ized agent  charged  with  the  disbursement  of  all  moneys  (save  certain 
specified  "personal"  expenditures)  in  the  candidate's  behalf  and  with 
the  duty  of  submitting  to  the  returning  officer  within  thirty-five  days 
after  the  election  a  sworn  statement  covering  all  receipts  and  expen- 
ditures. And,  finally,  the  act  fixed,  upon  a  sliding  scale  in  proportion 
to  the  size  of  the  constituencies,  the  maximum  amounts  which  candi- 
dates may  legitimately  expend.  In  boroughs  containing  not  more  than 

1  M.  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties,  trans,  by 
F.  Clarke,  2  vols.  (London,  1902),  I,,  442-501;  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parlia- 
ment, 1-23.  Among  numerous  articles  descriptive  of  English  parliamentary  elec- 
tions mention  may  be  made  of  H.  W.  Lucy,  The  Methods  of  a  British  General 
Election,  in  Forum,  Oct.,  1900;  S.  Brooks,  English  and  American  Elections,  in 
Fortnightly  Review,  Feb.,  1910;  W.  T.  Stead,  The  General  Election  in  Great  Britain, 
in  American  Review  of  Reviews,  Feb.,  1910;  and  d'Haussonville,  Dix  jours  en  Angle- 
terre  pendant  les  Elections,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Feb.  i,  1910. 


96  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

2,000  registered  voters  the  amount  is  £350,  with  an  additional  £30  for 
every  thousand  voters  above  the  number  mentioned.  In  rural  con- 
stituencies, where  proper  outlays  will  normally  be  larger,  the  sum  of 
£650  is  allowed  when  the  number  of  registered  electors  falls  under  2,000, 
with  £60  for  each  additional  thousand.  Beyond  these  sums  the  candi- 
date is  allowed  an  outlay  of  £100  for  expenses  of  a  purely  personal  char- 
acter. 

The  range  of  expenditure  which  is  thus  permitted  by  law  is,  of  course, 
considerable,  and  the  records  of  election  cases  brought  into  the  courts 
demonstrate  that  not  infrequently  in  practice  its  limits  are  exceeded. 
None  the  less,  the  effect  of  the  law  has  been  undeniably  to  restrain 
the  outpouring  of  money  by  candidates,  to  purify  politics,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  enable  men  of  moderate  means  to  stand  for  election  who 
otherwise  would  be  at  grave  disadvantage  as  against  their  wealthier 
and  more  lavish  competitors.  It  is  of  interest  to  observe  that  by  reason 
of  the  non-participation  of  the  state  in  electoral  costs  there  fall  upon 
candidates  certain  charges  which  are  unknown  in  the  United  States 
and  other  countries.  The  bills  submitted  by  the  returning  officer  must 
be  paid  by  the  candidates  within  the  constituency,  and  these  bills 
cover  the  publishing  of  notices  of  the  election,  the  preparing  and  supply- 
ing of  nomination  papers,  the  cost  of  dies,  ballot-paper,  polling-stations, 
and  printing,  the  fees  of  clerks,  and,  finally,  the  travelling  expenses 
and  fee  of  the  returning  officer  himself.  The  candidate's  share  of  this 
outlay  may  be  as  small  as  £25,  but  it  is  likely  to  be  from  £200  to  £300 
and  may  rise  to  as  much  as  £6oo.1 

1  On  the  adoption  of  the  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act  of  1883  see  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III,,  31-33.  The  actual  operation  of 
the  system  established  may  be  illustrated  by  citing  a  specific  case.  At  the  election 
of  1906  the  maximum  expenditure  legally  possible  for  Mr.  Lloyd-George  in  his 
sparsely  populated  Carnarvon  constituency  was  £470.  His  authorized  agent,  after 
the  election,  reported  an  outlay  of  £50  on  agents,  £27  on  clerks  and  messengers, 
£189  on  printing,  postage,  etc.,  £30  on  public  meetings,  £25  on  committee  rooms, 
and  £40  on  miscellaneous  matters — a  total  of  £361.  The  candidate's  personal 
expenditure  amounted  to  £92,  so  that  the  total  outlay  of  £462  fell  short  by  a  scant 
£8  of  the  sum  that  might  legally  have  been  laid  out.  Divided  among  the  3,221 
votes  that  Mr.  Lloyd-George  received,  his  outlay  per  vote  was  2s.,  lod.  At  the 
same  election  Mr.  Asquith's  expenditure  was  £727;  Mr.  Winston  Churchill's, 
£844;  Mr.  John  Morley's,  £479;  Mr.  Keir  Hardie's,  £623;  Mr.  James  Bryce's, 
£480.  In  non-contested  constituencies  expenditures  are  small.  In  1906  Mr.  Red- 
mond's was  reported  to  be  £25  and  Mr.  William  O'Brien's,  £20.  In  1900  a  total 
of  1,103  candidates  for  670  seats  expended  £777,429  in  getting  3,579,345  votes;  in 
1906,  1,273  candidates  for  the  same  670  seats  expended  £1,166,858  in  getting 
5,645,104  votes;  in  January,  1910,  1,311  candidates  laid  out  £1,296,382  in  getting 
6,667,394  votes.  A  well-informed  article  is  E.  Porritt,  Political  Corruption  in 
England,  in  North  American  Review,  Nov.  16, 1906. 


CHAPTER  V 
PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 

I.  COMPOSITION 

101.  Origins. — With  the  possible  exception  of  the  Hungarian  Table 
of  Magnates,  the  British  House  of  Lords  is  the  most  ancient  second 
chamber  among  parliamentary  bodies.     It  is,  furthermore,  among 
second  chambers  the  largest  and  the  most  purely  hereditary.     Its 
descent  can  be  traced  directly  from  the  Great  Council  of  the  Plan- 
tagenet  period  and,  in  the  opinion  of  some  scholars,  from  the  witenage- 
mot  of  Anglo-Saxon  times.1    To  the  Council  belonged  originally  the 
nobility,  and  the  clergy,  greater  and  lesser.    Practically,  the  body  was 
composed  of  the  more  influential  churchmen  and  the  more  powerful 
tenants-in-chief  of  the  crown.    In  the  course  of  time  the  lesser  clergy 
found  it  convenient  to  confine  their  attention  to  the  proceedings 
of  the  ecclesiastical  assemblage  known  as  Convocation;  while  the  lesser 
nobles,  i.  e.,  the  poorer  and  more  uninfluential  ones,  found  it  to  their 
interest  to  cast  in  their  lot,  not  as  formerly  with  the  great  barons  and 
earls,  but  with  the  well-to-do  though  non-noble  knights  of  the  shire. 
From  the  elements  that  remained — the  higher  clergy  and  the  greater 
nobles — developed  directly  the  House  of  Lords.    The  lesser  barons, 
the  knights  of  the  shire,  and  the  burgesses,  on  the  other  hand,  com- 
bined to  form  the  House  of  Commons. 

102.  Princes  of  the  Blood  and  Hereditary  Peers. — In  respect  to  its 
fundamental  constitution  the  House  of  Lords  has  undergone  but  slight 
modification  during  the  many  centuries  of  its  existence.    In  respect, 
however,  to  the  composition  and  size  of  the  body  changes  have  been 
numerous  and  important.    There  are  in  the  chamber  to-day  at  least 
six  distinct  groups  of  members,  sitting  by  various  rights  and  possess- 

1  "The  House  of  Lords  not  only  springs  out  of,  it  actually  is,  the  ancient  Witen- 
agemot.  I  can  see  no  break  between  the  two."  Freeman,  Growth  of  the  English 
Constitution,  62.  Professor  Freeman,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  prone  to  glorify 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions  and  to  under-estimate  the  changes  that  were  introduced 
in  England  through  the  agency  of  the  Norman  Conquest.  For  the  most  recent 
statement  of  the  opposing  view  see  Adams,  Origin  of  the  English  Constitution, 
Chaps.  1-4. 

97 


98  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ing  a  status  which  is  by  no  means  identical.  The  first  comprises  princes 
of  the  royal  blood  who  are  of  age.  The  number  of  these  is  variable, 
but  of  course  never  large.  They  take  precedence  of  the  other  nobility, 
but  in  point  of  fact  seldom  participate  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Cham- 
ber. The  second  group  is  the  most  important  of  all.  It  comprises  the 
peers  with  hereditary  seats  and  is  itself  divided  properly  into  three 
groups:  the  peers  of  England  created  before  the  union  with  Scotland 
in  1707,  the  peers  of  Great  Britain  created  between  the  date  mentioned 
and  the  union  with  Ireland  in  i8oi,and  the  peers  of  the  United  Kingdom 
created  since  that  date.  Technically,  peers  are  created  by  the  crown; 
but  in  practice  their  creation  is  controlled  largely  by  the  premier;  and 
the  act  may  be  performed  for  the  purpose  of  honoring  men  of  distinction 
in  law,  letters,  science,  or  business,  or  for  the  more  practical  purpose  of 
altering  the  political  complexion  of  the  upper  chamber.1  The  power  to 
create  peerages  is  unlimited 2  and,  this  being  the  only  means  by  which 
the  membership  of  the  body  can  be  increased  at  discretion,  the  power 
is  one  which  is  not  infrequently  exercised.  Originally  the  right  to  sit 
as  a  peer  was  conferred  simply  by  an  individual  writ  of  summons,  or 
by  the  fact  that  such  a  writ  had  been  issued  to  one's  ancestor,  but  this 
method  has  long  since  been  replaced  by  a  formal  grant  of  letters  pat- 
ent, accompanied  by  bestowal  of  the  requisite  writ.  With  exceptions  to 
be  noted,  peerages  are  hereditary,  and  the  heir  assumes  his  parlia- 
mentary seat  at  the  age  of  twenty-one.  Peers  are  of  five  ranks- 
dukes,  marquises,  earls,  viscounts,  and  barons.  The  complicated  rules 
governing  the  precedence  of  these  classes  are  of  large  social,  but  of 
minor  political,  interest. 

103.  Representative  Peers  of  Scotland  and  of  Ireland. — A  third 
group  of  members  comprises  the  representative  peers  of  Scotland. 
Under  provision  of  the  Act  of  Union  of  1707,  when  a  new  parliament 
is  summoned  the  whole  body  of  Scottish  peers  elects  sixteen  of  their 

1  The  first  peerage  bestowed  purely  in  recognition  of  literary  distinction  was  that 
of  Lord  Tennyson  in  1884,  the  peerages  bestowed  upon  Macaulay  and  Bulwer 
Lytton  having  been  determined  upon  in  part  under  the  influence  of  political  con- 
siderations.   The  first  professional  artist  to  be  honored  with  a  peerage  was  Lord 
Leighton,  in  1896.    Lord  Kelvin  and  Lord  Lister  are  among  well-known  men  of 
science  who  have  been  so  honored.    Lord  Goschen's  viscountcy  was  conferred,  with 
universal  approval,  as  the  fitting  reward  of  a  great  business  career.    The  earldom 
of  General  Roberts  and  the  viscountcies  of  Generals  Wolseley  and  Kitchener  were 
bestowed  in  recognition  of  military  distinction.    With  some  aptness  the  House  of 
Lords  has  been  denominated  "  the  Westminster  Abbey  of  living  celebrities." 

2  Except  that,  under  existing  law,  the  crown  cannot  (i)  create  a  peer  of  Scotland, 
(2)  create  a  peer  of  Ireland  otherwise  than  as  allowed  by  the  Act  of  Union  with 
Ireland,  and  (3)  direct  the  devolution  of  a  dignity  otherwise  than  in  accordance 
with  limitations  applying  in  the  case  of  grants  of  real  estate. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  99 

number  to  sit  as  their  representatives  at  Westminster.  By  custom 
the  election  takes  place  at  Holyrood  Palace  in  the  city  of  Edinburgh.1 
The  act  of  1707  made  no  provision  for  the  creation  of  Scottish  peers, 
with  the  consequence  that,  through  the  extinction  of  noble  families  and 
the  occasional  conferring  of  a  peerage  of  the  United  Kingdom  upon  a 
Scottish  peer,  the  total  number  of  Scottish  peerages  has  been  reduced 
from  165  to  33. 2  The  tenure  of  a  Scottish  representative  peer  at  West- 
minster expires  with  the  termination  of  a  parliament.  A  fourth  group 
of  members  is  the  Irish.  By  the  Act  of  Union  of  1800  it  was  provided 
that  not  all  of  the  peers  of  Ireland  should  be  accorded  seats  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  but  only  twenty-eight  of  them,  to  be  elected  for  life  by  the 
whole  number  of  Irish  peers.  The  number  of  Irish  peerages  was  put 
in  the  course  of  gradual  reduction  and  it  is  now  under  the  prescribed 
maximum  of  one  hundred.3  Unlike  the  English  and  Scottish  peers,, 
Irish  peers,  if  not  elected  to  the  House  of  Lords,  may  stand  for  election 
to  the  House  of  Commons,  though  they  may  not  represent  Irish  con- 
stituencies.4 While  members  of  the  Commons,  however,  they  may  not 
be  elected  to  the  Lords,  nor  may  they  participate  in  the  choice  of  repre- 
sentative peers. 

104.  The  Lords  of  Appeal.— A  fifth  group  of  members  comprises  the 
Lords  of  Appeal  in  Ordinary,  who  differ  from  other  peers  created  by  the 
crown  in  that  their  seats  are  not  hereditary.  One  of  the  functions  of 
the  House  of  Lords  is  to  serve  as  the  highest  national  court  of  appeal. 
It  is  but  logical  that  there  should  be  included  within  the  membership 
of  the  body  a  certain  number  of  the  most  eminent  jurists  of  the  realm, 
and,  further,  that  the  judicial  business  of  the  chamber  should  be  trans- 
acted largely  by  this  corps  of  experts.  In  1876  an  Appellate  Jurisdic- 
tion Act  was  passed  authorizing  the  appointment  of  two  (subsequently 
increased  to  four)  "law  lords"  with  the  title  of  baron,  and  by  legislation 
of  1887  the  tenure  of  these  members,  hitherto  conditioned  upon  the 
continued  exercise  of  judicial  functions,  was  made  perpetual  for  life. 
At  the  present  day  these  four  justices,  presided  over  by  lie  Lord  Chan- 
cellor, comprise  in  reality  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the  kingdom.  Three 
of  them  are  sufficient  to  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of 

1  For  a  statement  of  the  process  of  election  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the 
Constitution  (4th  ed.),  I.,  210-229. 

2  In  1909.    Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I,,  395. 

8  The  crown  was  authorized  to  create  one  Irish  peerage  only  for  every  three  such 
peerages  that  should  become  extinct.  During  the  thirty  years  preceding  the  con- 
ferring of  an  Irish  peerage  upon  Mr.  Curzon,  in  1898,  the  creation  of  Irish  peerages 
was  entirely  suspended. 

4  Lord  Palmerston,  for  example,  was  an  Irish  peer,  but  sat  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. 


ioo  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

judicial  business,  and  although  other  legal-minded  members  of  the 
chamber  may  participate,  and  technically  every  member  has  a  right 
to  do  so,  in  most  instances  this  inner  circle  discharges  the  judicial  func- 
tion quite  alone.1 

106.  The  Lords  Spiritual. — Finally,  there  are  the  ecclesiastical 
members — not  peers,  but  "lords  spiritual."  In  the  fifteenth  century 
the  lords  spiritual  outnumbered  the  lords  temporal;  but  upon  the  dis- 
solution of  the  monasteries  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  resulting  in  the 
dropping  out  of  the  abbots,  the  spiritual  contingent  fell  permanently  into 
the  minority.  At  the  present  day  the  quota  of  ecclesiastical  members 
is  restricted,  under  statutory  regulation,  to  26.  Scotland,  whose  estab- 
lished church  is  the  Presbyterian,  has  none.  Between  1801  and  1869 
Ireland  had  four,  but  since  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  church 
in  1869  there  have  been  none.  In  England  five  ecclesiastics,  by  statute, 
are  entitled  invariably  to  seats,  i.  e.,  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York  and  the  bishops  of  London,  Durham,  and  Winchester.  Among 
the  remaining  bishops  the  law  allows  seats  to  twenty-one,  in  the  order 
of  seniority.  There  are  always,  therefore,  some  English  bishops — in 
1909,  ten — who  are  not  members  of  the  chamber.2  All  ecclesiastical 
members  retain  their  seats  during  tenure  of  their  several  sees,  but  do 
not,  of  course,  transmit  their  rights  to  their  heirs,  nor,  necessarily, 
save  in  the  case  of  the  five  mentioned,  to  their  successors  in  office. 
Bishops  and  archbishops  are  elected,  nominally,  by  the  dean  and  chapter 
of  the  diocese;  but  when  a  vacancy  arises  the  sovereign  transmits  a 
conge  d'elire  containing  the  name  of  the  person  to  be  elected,  so  that, 
practically,  appointment  is  made  by  the  crown,  acting  under  the  advice 
of  the  prime  minister.  Bishropics  are  created  by  act  of  Parliament.3 

1  The  recognized  advisability  of  strengthening  the  judicial  element  in  the  Lords 
precipitated  at  one  time  a  serious  issue  respecting  the  power  of  the  crown  to  create 
life  peerages.    In  1856,  upon  the  advice  of  her  ministers,  Queen  Victoria  conferred 
upon  a  distinguished  judge,  Sir  James  Parke,  a  patent  as  Baron  Wensleydale  for 
life.    The  purpose  was  to  introduce  into  the  chamber  desirable  legal  talent  without 
further  augmenting  the  peerage.    For  the  creation  of  life  peerages  there  was  some 
precedent,  but  none  later  than  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.,  and  the  House  of  Lords, 
maintaining  that  the  right  had  lapsed  and  that  the  peerage  had  become  entirely 
hereditary,  refused  to  admit  Baron  Wensleydale  until  his  patent  was  so  modified 
that  his  peerage  was  made  hereditary. 

2  The  Bishop  of  Sodor  and  Man  is  entitled  to  a  seat,  but  not  to  take  part  in  the 
chamber's  proceedings.    His  status  has  been  compared  to  that  of  a  territorial  dele- 
gate in  the  United  States.    Moran,  The  English  Government,  170. 

3  On  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Lords  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 
I.,  Chap.  21 ;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  Chap.  5;  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  5;  Moran,  English  Govern- 
ment, Chap.  10 ;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  12;  Courtney,  Working 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 

106.  Qualifications  and  Number  of  Members:!— -A 

vented  from  occupying  a  seat  in  the  chamber  by  any  one  of  several 
disqualifications.  He  must  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one ;  he  must 
not  be  an  alien;  he  must  not  be  a  bankrupt;  he  must  not  be  under  sen- 
tence for  felony.  On  the  other  hand,  a  man  who  inherits  a  peerage 
cannot  renounce  the  inheritance.  Upon  more  than  one  occasion  this  rule 
has  been  a  matter  of  political  consequence,  for  its  operation  has  some- 
times meant  that  an  able  and  ambitious  commoner  has  been  compelled 
to  surrender  his  seat  in  the  more  important  chamber  and  to  assume  a 
wholly  undesired  place  in  the  upper  house.  In  1895  Mr.  William  W. 
Palmer,  later  Lord  Selbourne,  inheriting  a  peerage  but  desiring  to  con- 
tinue for  a  time  in  the  Commons,  put  this  rule  to  a  definite  test  by 
neglecting  to  apply  for  a  writ  of  summons  as  a  peer.  The  decision  of 
.  the  Commons,  however,  was  that  he  was  obligated  to  accept  membership 
in  the  upper  chamber,  and  hence  to  yield  the  place  which  he  occupied 
in  the  lower. 

The  House  of  Lords  numbers  to-day  620  members.  In  earlier  periods 
of  its  history  it  was  a  very  much  smaller  body,  and,  indeed,  its  most 
notable  growth  has  taken  place  within  the  past  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years.  During-  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  there  were  never  more  than 
eighty  members,  the  majority  of  whom  were  ecclesiastics.  To  the  first 
parliament  of  Charles  II.  there  were  summoned  139  persons.  At  the 
death  of  William  III.  the  roll  of  the  upper  chamber  comprised  192 
names.  At  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  the  number  was  209;  at  that  of 
George  I.  it  was  216;  at  that  of  George  II.,  229;  at  that  of  George  III., 
339;  at  that  of  George  IV.,  396;  at  that  of  William  IV.,  456.  Between 
1830  and  1898  there  were  conferred  364  peerages — 222  under  Liberal 
ministries  (covering,  in  the  aggregate,  forty  years)  and  142  under  the 
Conservatives  (covering  twenty-seven  years).  More  than  one-half 
of  the  peerages  of  to-day  have  been  created  within  the  past  fifty  years, 
and  of  the  remainder  only  an  insignificant  proportion  can  be  termed 
ancient. 

II.  THE  REFORM  OF  THE  LORDS:  THE  QUESTION  PRIOR  TO  1909 

107.  The  Status  of  the  Chamber. — As  a  law-making  body  the  House 
of  Lords  antedates  the  House  of  Commons.    At  the  beginning  of  the 
fourteenth  century  the  theory  was  that  the  magnates  assented  to  legis- 
lation while  the  Commons  merely  petitioned  for  it.   In  a  statute  of  1322, 

Constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom,  Chap,  n;  Macy,  English  Constitution, 
Chap.  4;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chaps.  6-7;  and  Walpole,  The 
Electorate  and  the  Legislature,  Chap.  2.  The  subject  is  treated  in  greater  detail 
in  Pike.  Constitutional  History  of  the  House  of  Lords,  especially  Chap.  15. 


L<?2  -.GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

however,,  the  legislative  character  of  Parliament  as  a  whole  was  effec- 
tively recognized,  and  at  the  same  time  the  legislative  parity  of  the 
commons  with  the  magnates.  Thenceforth,  until  very  nearly  the 
present  day,  the  two  chambers  were  legally  co-ordinate  and  every  act 
of  legislation  required  the  assent  of  both.  It  is  true  that  during  the 
course  of  the  nineteenth  century  there  was  a  remarkable  growth  of  legis- 
lative preponderance  on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Commons,  until, 
indeed,  the  point  was  reached  where  all  important  measures  were 
first  presented  in  that  chamber  and  the  Lords  were  very  certain  not  to 
thwart  the  ultimate  adoption  of  any  project  of  which  the  nation  as 
represented  in  the  popular  branch  unmistakably  approved.  Yet  upon 
numerous  occasions  bills,  and  sometimes — as  in  the  case  of  Gladstone's 
Home  Rule  Bill  in  1893 — highly  important  ones,  were  defeated  outright; 
and  at  all  times  the  chamber  imposed  a  check  upon  the  lower  house 
and  exercised  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  actual  course  of  legislative 
business.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1911,  however,  the  status 
and  the  legislative  functions  of  the  House  of  Lords  have  been  profoundly 
altered,  and  an  adequate  understanding  of  the  workings  of  the  British 
parliament  to-day  requires  some  review  of  the  changes  wrought  by  that 
remarkable  piece  of  legislation. 

Throughout  upwards  of  a  century  the  "mending  or  ending  "  of  the 
Lords  has  been  among  the  most  widely  discussed  of  public  issues  in  the 
United  Kingdom.  The  question  has  been  principally  one  of  " mending," 
for  the  number  of  persons  who  have  advocated  seriously  the  total 
abolition  of  the  chamber  has  been  small  and  their  influence  has  been 
slight.  The  utility  of  a  second  chamber,  in  a  democratic  no  less  than  in 
an  illiberal  constitutional  system,  is  very  generally  admitted,1  and  no 
one  supposes  that  the  House  of  Lords  will  ever  be  swept  completely  out 
of  existence  to  make  room  for  the  establishment  of  a  new  and  entirely 
different  parliamentary  body.  If  it  were  to  devolve  upon  the  people 
of  Great  Britain  to-day  to  adopt  for  themselves  de  now  a  complete 
governmental  system,  they  might  well  not  incorporate  in  that  system 
an  institution  of  the  nature  of  the  present  House  of  Lords;  but  since 
the  chamber  exists  and  is  rooted  in  centuries  of  national  usage  and  tradi- 
tion, the  perpetuation  of  it,  in  some  form,  may  be  taken  to  be  assured. 

108.  The  Breach  Between  the  Lords  and  the  Nation.— The  indict- 
ments which  have  been  brought  against  the  House  of  Lords  have  been 
sweeping  and  varied.  They  have  been  based  upon  the  all  but  exclu- 

1  There  are  of,  course,  Englishmen  who  concur  in  the  dictum  of  Sieyes  that  "if 
a  second  chamber  dissents  from  the  first,  it  is  mischievous;  if  it  agrees,  it  is  super- 
fluous." An  able  exponent  of  this  doctrine,  within  recent  years,  is  Sir  Charles 
Dilke. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  103 

sively  hereditary  character  of  the  membership,  upon  the  meagerness  of 
attendance  at  the  sittings  and  the  small  interest  displayed  by  a  major- 
ity of  the  members,  and  upon  the  hurried  and  frequently  perfunctory 
nature  of  the  consideration  which  is  accorded  public  measures.  Funda- 
mentally, however,  the  tremendous  attack  which  has  been  levelled 
against  the  Lords  has  had  as  its  impetus  the  conviction  of  large  masses 
of  people  that  the  chamber  as  constituted  stands  persistently  and  de- 
liberately for  interests  which  are  not  those  of  the  nation  at  large.  Prior 
to  the  parliamentary  reforms  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  House  of 
Commons  was  hardly  more  representative  of  the  people  than  was  the 
upper  chamber.  Both  were  controlled  by  the  landed  aristocracy,  and 
between  the  two  there  was  as  a  rule  substantial  accord.  After  1832, 
however,  the  territorial  interests,  while  yet  powerful,  were  not  domi- 
nant in  the  Commons,  and  a  cleavage  between  the  Lords,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Commons,  increasingly  representative  of  the  mass  of  the 
nation,  on  the  other,  became  a  serious  factor  in  the  politics  and  govern- 
ment of  the  realm.  The  reform  measures  of  1867  and  1884,  establish- 
ing in  substance  a  system  of  manhood  suffrage  in  parliamentary  elec- 
tions, converted  the  House  of  Commons  into  an  organ  of  thoroughgoing 
democracy.  The  development  of  the  cabinet  system  brought  the  work- 
ing executive,  likewise,  within  the  power  of  the  people  to  control.  But 
the  House  of  Lords  underwent  no  corresponding  transformation.  It 
remained,  and  still  is,  an  inherently  and  necessarily  conservative  body, 
representative,  in  the  main,  of  the  interests  of  landed  property,  adverse 
to  changes  which  seem  to  menace  property  and  established  order,  and 
identified  with  all  the  forces  that  tend  to  perpetuate  the  nobility  and 
the  Anglican  Church  as  pillars  of  the  state.  By  simply  standing  still 
while  the  remaining  departments  of  the  governmental  system  were 
undergoing  democratization  the  second  chamber  became,  in  effect,  a 
political  anomaly.1 

109.  Earlier  Projects  of  Reform. — Projects  for  the  reform  of  the  Lords 
were  not  unknown  before  1832,  but  it  has  been  since  that  date,  and, 
more  particularly  during  the  past  half-century,  that  the  reform  question 
has  been  agitated  most  vigorously.  Some  of  the  notable  proposals 
that  have  been  made  relate  to  the  composition  of  the  chamber,  others 
to  the  powers  and  functions  of  it,  and  still  others  to  both  of  these  things. 
In  respect  to  the  composition  of  the  body,  the  suggestions  that  have 
been  brought  forward  have  contemplated  most  commonly  the  reduc- 
tion of  the  chamber's  size,  the  dropping  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  members, 
and  the  substitution,  wholly  or  in  part,  of  specially  designated  members 
in  the  stead  of  the  members  who  at  present  sit  by  hereditary  right.  As 
1  Dickinson,  Development  of  Parliament  during  the  Nineteenth  Century,  Chap.  3. 


104  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

early  as  1834  it  was  advocated  that  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of 
the  Established  Church  should  "be  relieved  from  their  legislative  and 
judicial  duties,"  and  this  demand,  arising  principally  from  the  Non- 
conformists, has  been  voiced  repeatedly  in  later  years.  In  1835  the 
opposition  of  the  peers  to  measures  passed  by  the  Commons  incited 
a  storm  of  popular  disapproval  of  such  proportions  that  more  than  one 
of  the  members  of  the  chamber  gloomily  predicted  the  early  demolition 
of  the  body,  and  throughout  succeeding  decades  the  idea  took  increas- 
ing hold,  within  the  membership  as  well  as  without,  that  change  was 
inevitable.  In  1869  a  bill  of  Lord  Russell  providing  for  the  gradual 
infiltration  of  life  peers  was  defeated  on  the  third  reading,  and  in  the  same 
year  a  project  of  Earl  Grey,  and  in  1874  proposals  of  Lord  Rosebery  and 
Lord  Inchiquin,  came  to  naught.  The  rejection  by  the  Lords  of  meas- 
ures supported  by  Gladstone's  government  in  1881-1883  brought  the 
chamber  afresh  into  popular  disfavor,  and  in  1884  Lord  Rosebery  in- 
troduced a  motion  "that  a  select  committee  be  appointed  to  consider 
the  best  means  of  promoting  the  efficiency  of  this  House,"  with  the 
thought  that  there  might  be  brought  into  the  chamber  representatives 
of  the  nation  at  large,  and  even  of  the  laboring  classes.  The  motion  was 
rejected  overwhelmingly,  but  in  1888  it  was  renewed,  and  in  that  year 
the  Salisbury  government  introduced  two  reform  bills,  one  providing 
for  the  gradual  creation  of  fifty  life  peerages,  to  be  conferred  upon  men 
of  attainment  in  law,  diplomacy,  and  administrative  service,  and  the 
other  (popularly  known  as  the  "  Black  Sheep  Bill ")  providing  for  the 
discontinuance  of  writs  of  summons  to  undesirable  members  of  the  peer- 
age. The  bills,  however,  were  withdrawn  after  their  second  reading  and 
an  attempt  on  the  part  of  Lord  Carnarvon,  in  1889,  to  revive  the  second 
of  them  failed. 

110.  The  Lords  and  the  Liberal  Government,  1906-1907. — Thence- 
forward until  1907  the  issue  was  largely  quiescent.  During  a  consider- 
able portion  of  this  period  the  Unionist  party  was  in  power,  and  between 
the  upper  chamber,  four-fifths  of  whose  members  were  Unionists,  and 
the  Unionist  majority  in  the  Commons  substantial  harmony  was  easily 
maintained.  During  the  Liberal  administration  of  1893-1894  the  Lords 
rejected  Gladstone's  second  Home  Rule  Bill  and  mutilated  and  defeated 
other  measures;  but,  although  the  Liberal  leaders  urged  that  the  will 
of  the  people  had  been  frustrated,  the  appeal  for  second  chamber  re- 
form failed  utterly  to  strike  fire.  With  the  establishment  of  the 
Campbell-Bannerman  ministry,  in  December,  1905,  the  Liberals  entered 
upon  what  has  proved  a  prolonged  tenure  of  power  and  the  issue  of  the 
Lords  was  brought  again  inevitably  into  the  forefront  of  public  contro- 
versy. In  consequence  of  the  Lords'  insistence  upon  an  amendment  of 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  105 

the  fundamentals  of  the  Government's  Education  Bill,  late  in  1906, 
and  the  openly  manifested  disposition  of  the  Unionist  upper  chamber 
to  obstruct  the  Liberal  programme  in  a  variety  of  directions,1  the  war- 
fare between  the  houses  once  more  assumed  threatening  proportions. 
A  resolution  introduced  by  the  premier  June  24,  1907,  was  adopted  in 
the  Commons  after  a  three  days'  debate  by  a  vote  of  385  to  100,  as 
follows:  "That,  in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  will  of  the  people  as  ex- 
pressed by  elected  representatives  it  is  necessary  that  the  power  of  the 
other  House  to  alter  or  reject  bills  passed  by  this  House  shall  be  so 
restricted  by  law  as  to  secure  that  within  the  limits  of  a  single  parlia- 
ment the  final  decision  of  the  Commons  shall  prevail."  It  was  an- 
nounced that  a  bill  carrying  into  effect  the  substance  of  this  declaration 
would  be  introduced,  and  it  was  understood  that  the  Government's 
plan  contemplated  a  reduction  of  the  maximum  life  of  a  parliament 
from  seven  years  to  five  and  the  institution  of  a  system  of  conference 
committees  whereby  agreement  might  be  effected  upon  occasion  be- 
tween the  two  houses,  reserving  the  eventual  right  of  the  Commons, 
after  a  third  rejection  by  the  Lords,  to  enact  a  measure  into  law  alone. 
Preoccupied,  however,  with  projects  of  general  legislation,  the  Govern- 
ment postponed  and  eventually  abandoned  the  introduction  of  its  bill. 
In  the  upper  chamber  a  measure  introduced  by  Lord  Newton,  pro- 
viding for  (i)  a  reduction  of  the  hereditary  element  by  requiring  that 
a  peer  by  descent  alone  should  have  a  right  to  sit  only  if  he  were  elected 
(for  a  single  parliament)  as  a  representative  peer  or  possessed  other 
stipulated  qualifications  and  (2)  the  appointment  by  the  crown  of  a 
maximum  of  one  hundred  life  peers,  was  discussed  at  some  length. 
The  bill  was  withdrawn,  but  it  was  decided  to  create  a  Select  Committee 
on  the  House  of  Lords,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Lord  Rosebery,  and 
in  December,  1908,  this  committee  reported  a  scheme  of  reform  in 
accordance  with  which  (i)  a  peerage  alone  should  not  entitle  the  holder 
to  a  seat  in  the  chamber;  (2)  the  hereditary  peers,  including  those  of 
Scotland  and  Ireland,  should  elect  two  hundred  representatives  to  sit 
in  the  upper  house  for  each  parliament;  (3)  hereditary  peers  who  had 
occupied  certain  posts  of  eminence  in  the  government  and  the  army 

1  Notably  in  respect  to  legislation  abolishing  the  plural  vote  and  regulating  the 
liquor  traffic.  The  Lords  rejected  a  Plural  Voting  Bill  and  an  Aliens  Bill  in  1906, 
a  Land  Values  Bill  in  1907,  and  a  Licensing  Bill  in  1908.  In  the  interest  of  accuracy 
it  should  be  observed  that  during  the  first  session  of  1906  a  total  of  121  bills  became 
law,  that  only  four  (including  the  Education  Bill)  passed  by  the  Commons  were 
rejected  by  the  Lords,  and  that  fifteen  passed  by  the  Lords  were  rejected  in  the 
Commons.  The  proportions  at  most  sessions  during  the  period  under  review  were 
substantially  similar.  But,  of  course,  measures  rejected  by  the  Lords  were  likely 
to  be  those  in  which  the  interest  of  the  Liberal  government  was  chiefly  centered. 


106  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  navy  should  be  entitled  to  sit  without  election;  (4)  the  bishops 
should  elect  eight  representatives,  while  the  archbishops  should  sit 
as  of  right;  and  (5)  the  crown  should  be  empowered  to  summon  four 
life  peers  annually,  so  long  as  the  total  did  not  exceed  forty.  This  series 
of  proposals  failed  utterly  to  meet  the  Liberal  demand  and  no  action 
was  taken  upon  it.  But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Lords'  Reconstruction 
Bill  of  1911,  to  be  described  presently,  was  based  in  no  small  measure 
upon  information  and  recommendations  forthcoming  from  the  Rosebery 
committee.1 

HE.  THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  LORDS,  1909-1911 

111.  The  Lords  and  Money  Bills. — In  November,  1909,  the  issue  was 
reopened  in  an  unexpected  manner  by  the  Lords'  rejection  of  the  Govern- 
ment's Finance  Bill,  in  which  were  included  far-reaching  proposals  of 
the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Mr.  Lloyd-George,  respecting  the  read- 
justment of  national  taxation.  This  act  of  the  upper  chamber,  while 
not  contrary  to  positive  law,  contravened  in  so  serious  a  manner  long 
established  custom  that  it  was  declared  by  those  who  opposed  it  to  be 
in  effect  revolutionary.  Certainly  the  result  was  to  precipitate  an  al- 
teration of  first-rate  importance  in  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom. 
The  priority  of  the  Commons  within  the  domain  of  finance  was  estab- 
lished at  an  early  period  of  parliamentary  history;  and  priority,  in 
time,  was  converted  into  thoroughgoing  dominance.  As  early  as  1407 
Henry  IV.  recognized  the  principle  that  money  grants  should  be 
initiated  in  the  Commons,  assented  to  by  the  Lords,  and  subsequently 
reported  to  the  crown.  This  procedure  was  not  always  observed,  but 
after  the  resumption  by  the  two  houses  of  their  normal  functions  fol- 
lowing the  Restoration  in  1660  the  right  of  the  commoners  to  take 
precedence  in  fiscal  business  was  forcefully  and  continuously  asserted. 
In  1671  the  Commons  resolved  "that  in  all  aids  given  to  the  king  by 
the  Commons,  the  rate  or  tax  ought  not  to  be  altered  by  the  Lords," 
and  a  resolution  of  1678  reaffirmed  that  all  bills  granting  supplies 
"  ought  to  begin  with  the  Commons."  At  no  time  did  the  Lords  admit 
formally  the  validity  of  these  principles;  but,  by  refusing  to  consider 
fiscal  measures  originated  in  the  upper  chamber  and  to  accept  financial 
amendments  there  proposed,  the  Commons  successfully  enforced 
observance  of  them. 

The  rules  in  this  connection  upon  which  the  Commons  insisted 
have  been  summarized  as  follows:  (i)  The  Lords  ought  not  to  initiate 

1  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III.,  343-349.  For 
references  on  the  general  subject  of  the  reform  of  the  Lords  see  pp.  115- 116. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  107 

any  legislative  proposal  embodied  in  a  public  bill  and  imposing  a 
charge  on  the  people,  whether  by  taxes,  rates,  or  otherwise,  or  regu- 
lating the  administration  or  application  of  money  raised  by  such  a 
charge,  and  (2)  the  Lords  ought  not  to  amend  any  such  legislative 
proposal  by  altering  the  amount  of  a  charge,  or  its  incidence,  duration, 
mode  of  assessment,  levy  or  collection,  or  the  administration  or  ap- 
plication of  money  raised  by  such  a  charge."  1  These  rules,  although 
not  embodied  in  any  law  or  standing  order,  were  through  centuries 
so  generally  observed  in  the  usage  of  the  two  houses  that  they  becamev 
for  all  practical  purposes,  a  part  of  the  constitutional  system — con- 
ventional, it  is  true,  but  none  the  less  binding.  From  their  observance 
it  resulted  (i)  that  the  upper  chamber  was  never  consulted  about  the 
annual  estimates,  about  the  amounts  of  money  to  be  raised,  or  about 
the  purposes  to  which  those  amounts  should  be  appropriated;  (2)  that 
proposals  of  taxation  came  before  it  only  in  matured  form  and  under 
circumstances  which  discouraged  criticism;  and  (3)  that,  since  the 
policy  of  the  executive  is  controlled  largely  through  the  medium  of  the 
power  of  the  purse,  the  upper  house  lost  entirely  the  means  of  ex- 
ercising such  control.  In  1860  the  Lords,  as  has  been  mentioned,  made 
bold  to  reject  a  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  duties  on  paper;  but  the  oc- 
casion was  seized  by  the  Commons  to  pass  a  resolution  reaffirming 
vigorously  the  subordination  of  the  second  chamber  in  finance,  and  the 
next  year  the  repeal  of  the  paper  duties  was  incorporated  in  the  annual 
budget  and  forced  through.  Thereafter  it  became  the  invariable 
practice  to  give  place  to  all  proposals  of  taxation  in  the  one  grand 
Finance  Bill  of  the  year,  with  the  effect,  of  course,  of  depriving  the 
Lords  of  the  opportunity  to  defeat  a  proposal  of  the  kind  save  by  re- 
jecting the  whole  of  the  measure  of  which  it  formed  a  part.2 

112.  The  Finance  BUI  of  1909  and  the  Asquith  Resolutions.— The 
rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  in  igog,3  following  as  it  did  the  rejection 
of  other  important  measures  which  the  Liberal  majority  in  the  Com- 
mons had  approved,  raised  in  an  acute  form  the  question  of  the  power 

1  Ilbert,  Parliament,  205. 

2  It  was  in  pursuance  of  this  policy  that  Sir  William  Vernon-Harcourt  incorpo- 
rated in  the  Finance  Bill  of  1894,  extensive  changes  in  the  death  duties  and  Sir 
Michael  Hicks-Beach,  in  1899,  included  proposals  for  altering  the  permanent  pro- 
visions made  for  the  reduction  of  the  national  debt. 

3  Strictly,  the  Lords  declined  to  assent  to  the  Budget  until  it  should  have  been 
submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  people.    On  the  nature  of  the  Government's 
finance  proposals  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III., 
350-355;  G.  L.  Fox,  The  British  Budget  of  1909,  in  Yale  Review,  Feb.,  1910;  and 
D.  Lloyd-George,  The  People's  Budget  (London,  1909),  containing  extracts  from 
the  Chancellor's  speeches  on  the  subject. 


108  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  the  Lords  over  money  bills  and  precipitated  a  crisis  in  the  relations 
between  the  two  houses.  On  the  one  hand  the  House  of  Commons 
adopted,  by  a  vote  of  349  to  134,  a  memorable  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  "  the  action  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  refusing  to  pass  into  law  the 
provision  made  by  the  House  of  Commons  for  the  finances  of  the  year 
is  a  breach  of  the  constitution,  and  a  usurpation  of  the  privileges  of  the 
House  of  Commons";  and,  on  the  other,  the  Asquith  ministry  came  in- 
stantly to  the  decision  that  the  situation  demanded  an  appeal  to  the 
country.  In  January,  1910,  a  general  election  took  place,  with  the 
result  that  the  Government  was  continued  in  power,  though  with  a 
reduced  majority;  and  at  the  convening  of  the  new  parliament,  in 
February,  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  promised  that  proposals  should 
speedily  be  submitted  "to  define  the  relations  between  the  houses  of 
Parliament,  so  as  to  secure  the  undivided  authority  of  the  House  of 
Commons  over  finance,  and  its  predominance  in  legislation."  The 
Finance  Bill  of  the  year  was  reintroduced  and  this  time  successfully 
carried  through;  but  in  advance  of  its  reappearance  the  premier  laid 
before  the  House  of  Commons  a  series  of  resolutions  to  the  following 
effect: l  (i)  that  the  House  of  Lords  should  be  disabled  by  law  from 
rejecting  or  amending  a  money  bill;  (2)  that  the  power  of  the  chamber 
to  veto  other  bills  should  be  restricted  by  law;  and  (3)  that  the  dura- 
tion of  a  parliament  should  be  limited  to  a  maximum  period  of  five 
years.  During  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  these  resolutions  it  was 
made  clear  that  the  Government  did  not  desire  the  abolition  of  the 
Lords,  but  wished  merely  to  have  the  legislative  competence  of  the 
house  confined  to  consultation,  revision,  and,  subject  to  proper  safe- 
guards, delay.  April  14,  1910,  the  resolutions  were  adopted  in  the 
Commons  by  substantial  majorities,2  and  with  them  as  a  basis  the 
Government  proceeded  with  the  framing  of  its  bill  upon  the  subject. 
Meanwhile,  March  14,  there  had  been  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Lords  by  Lord  Rosebery  an  independent  series  of  resolutions,  as  fol- 
lows: (i)  that  a  strong  and  efficient  second  chamber  is  not  merely  a 
part  of  the  British  constitution  but  is  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  the 
state  and  the  balance  of  Parliament;  (2)  that  such  a  chamber  may  best 
be  obtained  by  the  reform  and  reconstitution  of  the  House  of  Lords; 
and  (3)  that  a  necessary  preliminary  to  such  a  reform  and  reconstitu- 
tion is  the  acceptance  of  the  principle  that  the  possession  of  a  peerage 

1  The  Finance  Bill  passed  its  third  reading  in  the  House  of  Commons  April  27, 
was  passed  in  the  Lords  April  28,  without  division,  and  received  the  royal  assent 
April  29. 

2  The  votes  on  the  three  resolutions  were,  respectively,  339  to  237, 351  to  246,  and 
334  to  236. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  icy 

should  no  longer  of  itself  involve  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  House. 
The  first  two  of  these  resolutions  were  agreed  to  without  division; 
the  third,  although  vigorously  opposed,  was  carried  eventually  by  a 
vote  of  175  to  17. 

113.  The  Unionists  and  the  Referendum.— The  death  of  the 
king,  May  6,  halted  consideration  of  the  subject,  and  through  the 
succeeding  summer  hope  was  centered  in  a  "constitutional  conference" 
participated  in  by  eight  representatives  of  the  two  houses  and  of  the 
two  principal  parties.  A  total  of  twenty-one  meetings  were  held,  but 
all  effort  to  reach  an  agreement  proved  futile  and  at  the  reassembling 
of  Parliament,  November  15,  the  problem  was  thrown  back  for  so- 
lution upon  the  houses  and  the  country.  November  17  there  was 
carried  in  the  Lords,  without  division,  a  new  resolution  introduced  by 
Lord  Rosebery  to  the  effect  that  in  future  the  House  of  Lords  should 
consist  of  Lords  of  Parliament  in  part  chosen  by  the  whole  body  of 
hereditary  peers  from  among  themselves  and  by  nomination  of  the 
crown,  in  part  sitting  by  virtue  of  offices  held  and  qualifications  pos- 
sessed, and  in  part  designated  from  outside  the  ranks  of  the  peerage..  A 
few  days  subsequently,  the  Government's  Parliament  Bill  having  been 
presented  in  the  second  chamber  (November  21),  Lord  Lansdowne, 
leader  of  the  Opposition  in  that  chamber,  came  forward  with  a  fresh 
series  of  resolutions  designed  to  clarify  the  Unionist  position  in  antici- 
pation of  the  elections  which  were  announced  for  the  ensuing  month. 
With  respect  to  money  bills  it  was  declared  that  the  Lords  were  "pre- 
pared to  forego  their  constitutional  right  to  reject  or  amend  money 
bills  which  are  purely  financial  in  character,"  provided  that  adequate 
provision  should  be  made  against  tacking,  that  questions  as  to  whether 
a  bill  or  any  provision  thereof  were  purely  financial  should  be  referred 
to  a  joint  committee  of  the  two  houses  (the  Speaker  of  the  Commons 
presiding  and  possessing  a  casting  vote),  and  that  a  bill  decided  by 
such  a  committee  to  be  not  purely  financial  should  be  dealt  with  in  a 
joint  sitting  of  the  two  houses.  With  respect  to  all  measures  other  than 
those  thus  provided  for  the  resolutions  declared  that  "if  a  difference 
arises  between  the  two  houses  with  regard  to  any  bill  other  than  a 
money  bill  in  two  successive  sessions,  and  with  an  interval  of  not  less 
than  one  year,  and  such  difference  cannot  be  adjusted  by  any  other 
means,  it  shall  be  settled  in  a  joint  sitting  composed  of  members  of  the 
two  houses;  provided  that  if  the  difference  relates  to  a  matter  which  is 
of  great  gravity,  and  has  not  been  adequately  submitted  for  the  judg- 
ment of  the  people,  it  shall  not  be  referred  to  the  joint  sitting,  but  shall 
be  submitted  for  decision  to  the  electors  by  referendum."  It  will  be 
observed  that  these  resolutions  were  hardly  less  drastic  than  were 


no  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

those  carried  through  the  Commons  by  the  ministry.  Their  adoption 
involved  the  abolition  of  the  absolute  veto  of  the  second  chamber 
and  might  well  involve  the  intrusting  of  interests  which  the  peers 
held  dear  to  the  hazards  of  a  nation-wide  referendum.1  None  the 
less,  the  resolutions  were  agreed  to  without  division,  and,  both  parties 
having  in  effect  pronounced  the  existing  legislative  system  unsatis- 
factory, the  electorate  was  asked  to  choose  between  the  two  elaborate 
substitutes  thus  proposed. 

114.  The  Enactment  of  the  Parliament  Bill,  1911.— The  appeal  to 
the  country,  in  December,  yielded  results  all  but  exactly  identical  with 
those  of  the  elections  of  the  previous  January.  The  Government 
secured  a  majority  of  127,  and  in  the  new  parliament,  which  met 
February  6,  the  Parliament  Bill  was  reintroduced  without  alteration. 
On  the  ground  that  the  measure  had  been  submitted  specifically  to 
the  people  and  had  been  approved  by  them,  the  ministry  demanded 
its  early  enactment  by  the  two  houses.  May  15  the  bill  passed  its 
third  reading  in  the  Commons  by  a  vote  of  362  to  241.  During  the 
committee  stage  upwards  of  one  thousand  amendments  were  suggested. 
But  the  Government  stood  firm  for  the  instrument  as  originally  drawn 
and,  while  it  accepted  a  few  incidental  changes,  in  the  end  it  got  es- 
sentially its  own  way. 

Meanwhile,  early  in  May,  Lord  Lansdowne  introduced  in  the  upper 
chamber  a  comprehensive  bill  which  put  in  form  for  legislation  the 
programme  of  reconstruction  to  which  the  more  moderate  elements 
in  that  chamber  were  ready,  under  the  circumstances,  to  subscribe. 
The  Lansdowne  Reconstruction  Bill  proposed,  at  the  outset,  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  membership  of  the  chamber  to  350.  Princes  of  the  blood 
and  the  two  archbishops  should  retain  membership,  but  the  number 
of  bishops  entitled  to  sit  should  be  reduced  to  five,  these  to  be  chosen 
triennially  by  the  whole  body  of  higher  prelates  upon  the  principle  of 
proportional  representation.  The  remainder  of  the  membership 
should  comprise  lords  of  parliament,  as  follows:  (i)  100  elected  from 
the  peers  possessing  carefully  stipulated  qualifications,  for  a  term  of 
twelve  years,  on  the  principle  of  proportional  representation,  by  the 
whole  body  of  hereditary  peers  (including  the  Scotch  and  Irish),  one- 
fourth  of  the  number  retiring  triennially;  (2)  120  members  chosen  by 
electoral  colleges  composed  of  members  of  the  House  of  Commons 
divided  for  the  purpose  into  local  groups,  each  returning  from  three  to 
twelve,  under  conditions  of  tenure  similar  to  those  prevailing  in  the 
first  class;  and  (3)  100  appointed,  from  the  peerage  or  outside,  by  the 

1  For  the  growth  of  the  idea  of  the  referendum  see  H.  W.  Horwill,  The  Referen- 
dum in  Great  Britain,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly,  Sept.,  1911. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  III 

crown  on  nomination  by  the  premier,  with  regard  to  the  strength  of 
parties  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  under  the  before-mentioned 
conditions  of  tenure.  It  was  stipulated,  further,  that  peers  not  sitting 
in  the  House  of  Lords  should  be  eligible  for  election  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  that,  except  in  event  of  the  "indispensable"  eleva- 
tion of  a  cabinet  minister  or  ex-minister  to  the  peerage,  it  should 
be  unlawful  for  the  crown  to  confer  the  dignity  of  an  hereditary 
peerage  upon  more  than  five  persons  during  the  course  of  any  single 
year. 

This  body  of  proposals,  it  will  be  observed,  related  exclusively  to 
the  composition  of  the  upper  chamber.  The  Liberal  leaders  preferred 
to  approach  the  problem  from  the  other  side  and  to  assure  the  pre- 
ponderance of  the  Commons  by  the  imposition  of  positive  restrictions 
upon  the  powers  which  the  Lords,  under  given  conditions,  might  exer- 
cise. Lord  Lansdowne's  bill — sadly  characterized  by  its  author  as  the 
"  deathblow  to  the  House  of  Lords,  as  many  of  us  have  known  it  for  so 
long" — came  too  late,  and  the  chamber,  after  allowing  it  to  be  read  a 
second  time  without  division,  was  constrained  to  drop  it  for  the  Gov- 
ernment's measure.  July  20  the  Parliament  Bill,  amended  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  exclude  from  its  operation  legislation  affecting  the  consti- 
tution and  other  matters  of  "great  gravity,"  was  adopted  without  divi- 
sion. The  proposed  amendments  were  highly  objectionable  to  the  Lib- 
erals and,  relying  upon  an  understanding  entered  into  with  the  king 
during  the  previous  November  relative  to  the  creation  of  peers  favor- 
able to  the  Government's  programme,  the  ministry  let  it  be  understood 
that  no  compromise  upon  essentials  could  be  considered.1  Con- 
fronted with  the  prospect  of  a  wholesale  "swamping,"  2  the  Opposition 
fell  back  upon  the  policy  of  abstention  and,  although  a  considerable 
number  of  "last-ditchers"  held  out  to  the  end,  a  group  of  Unionists 
adequate  to  carry  the  measure  joined  the  supporters  of  the  Govern- 
ment, August  10,  in  a  vote  not  to  insist  upon  the  Lords'  amendments, 
which  meant,  in  effect,  to  approve  the  bill  as  adopted  in  the  lower 
house.3  The  royal  assent  was  extended  August  18. 

1  When,  July  24,  Premier  Asquith  rose  in  the  Commons  to  reply  to  the  Lords' 
amendments  there  resulted  such  confusion  that  for  the  first  time  in  generations, 
save  upon  one  occasion  in  1905,  the  Speaker  was  obliged  to  adjourn  a  sitting  on  ac- 
count of  the  disorderly  conduct  of  members. 

2  Had  the  Unionists  maintained  to  the  end  their  attitude  of  opposition  the 
number  of  peers  which  would  have  had  to  be  created  to  ensure  the  enactment  of 
the  bill  would  have  been  some  400. 

3  The  final  vote  in  the  Lords  was  131  to  114.   The  Unionist  peers  who  voted  with 
the  Government  numbered  37. 


112  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


IV.  THE  PARLIAMENT  ACT  OF  1911  AND  AFTER 

115.  Provisions  Relating  to  Money  Bills. — In  its  preamble   the 
Parliament  Act  promises  further  legislation  which  will  define  both  the 
composition  and  the  powers  of  a  second  chamber  "constituted  on  a 
popular  instead  of  an  hereditary  basis  ";  but  the  act  itself  relates  ex- 
clusively to  the  powers  of  the  chamber  as  it  is  at  present  constituted. 
The  general  purport  of  the  measure  is  to  define  the  conditions  under 
which,  while  the  normal  methods  of  legislation  remain  unchanged, 
financial  bills  and  proposals  of  general  legislation  may  nevertheless  be 
enacted  into  law  without  the  concurrence  of  the  upper  house.    The 
first  signal  provision  is  that  a  public  bill  passed  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  certified  by  the  Speaker  to  be,  within  the  terms  of  the  act, 
a  "money  bill"  shall,  unless  the  Commons  direct  to  the  contrary,  be- 
come an  act  of  Parliament  on  the  royal  assent  being  signified,  notwith- 
standing that  the  House  of  Lords  may  not  have  consented  to  the  bill, 
within  one  month  after  it  shall  have  been  sent  up  to  that  house.    A 
money  bill  is  defined  as  "a  public  bill  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Speaker,  contains  only  provisions  dealing  with  all  or  any  of  the  fol- 
lowing subjects:  the  imposition,  repeal,  remission,  alteration,  or  reg- 
ulation of  taxation;  the  imposition  for  the  payment  of  debt  or  other 
financial  purposes  of  charges  on  the  Consolidated  Fund,  or  on  money 
provided  by  Parliament,  or  the  variation  or  repeal  of  any  such  charges; 
supply;  the  appropriation,  receipt,  custody,  issue  or  audit  of  accounts 
of  public  money;  the  raising  or  guarantee  of  any  loan  or  the  payment 
thereof;  or  subordinate  matters  incidental  to  those  subjects  or  any  of 
them."    A  certificate  of  the  Speaker  given  under  this  act  is  made 
conclusive  for  all  purposes.    It  may  not  be  questioned  in  any  -court  of 
law.1 

116.  Provisions  Relating  to  Other  Public  Bills. — The  second  fun- 
damental stipulation  is  that  any  other  public  bill  (except  one  to  con- 
firm a  provisional  order  or  one  to  extend  the  maximum  duration  of 
Parliament  beyond  five  years)  which  is  passed  by  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  three  successive  sessions,  whether  or  not  of  the  same  parlia- 
ment, and  which,  having  been  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Lords  at  least 

1  An  incidental  effect  of  the  act  is  to  exalt  the  power  and  importance  of  the 
Speaker,  although  it  should  be  observed  that  the  Speaker  has  long  been  accustomed 
to  state  at  the  introduction  of  a  public  bill  whether  in  his  judgment  the  rights  or 
privileges  claimed  by  the  House  of  Commons  in  respect  to  finance  had  been  in- 
fringed. If  he  were  of  the  opinion  that  there  had  been  infringement,  it  remained 
for  the  House  to  determine  whether  it  would  insist  upon  or  waive  its  privilege 
Ilbert,  Parliament,  207. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  113 

one  month,  in  each  case,  before  the  end  of  the  session,  is  rejected  by 
that  chamber  in  each  of  those  sessions,  shall,  unless  the  House  of  Com- 
mons direct  to  the  contrary,  become  an  act  of  Parliament  on  the  royal 
assent  being  signified  thereto,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  House 
of  Lords  has  not  consented  to  the  bill.  It  is  required  that  at  least  two 
years  shall  have  elapsed  between  the  date  of  the  second  reading  of 
such  a  bill  (i.  e.,  the  first  real  opportunity  for  its  discussion)  in  the 
first  of  these  sessions  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  final  passage 
of  the  bill  in  the  third  of  the  sessions.  To  come  within  the  provisions 
of  this  act  the  measure  must  be,  at  its  initial  and  its  final  appearances, 
the  "same  bill;"  that  is,  it  must  exhibit  no  alterations  save  such  as  are 
rendered  necessary  by  the  lapse  of  time.  And  a  bill  is  to  be  construed 
to  be  "rejected"  by  the  Lords  if  it  is  not  passed,  or  if  amendments  are 
introduced  to  which  the  House  of  Commons  does  not  agree,  or  which 
the  House  of  Commons  does  not  suggest  to  the  House  of  Lords  at  the 
second  or  third  passage  of  the  bill. 

117.  Effects  of  the  Act. — By  the  provisions  which  have  been  enu- 
merated the  co-ordinate  and  independent  position  which,  in  law  if  not 
in  fact,  the  British  upper  chamber,  as  a  legislative  body,  has  occupied 
through  the  centuries  has  been  effectually  subverted.  Within  the 
domain  of  legislation,  it  is  true,  the  Lords  may  yet  exercise  influence 
of  no  inconsiderable  moment.  To  the  chamber  must  be  submitted 
every  project  of  finance  and  of  legislation  which  it  is  proposed  to  enact 
into  law,  and  there  is  still  nothing  save  a  certain  measure  of  custom 
to  prevent  the  introduction  of  even  the  most  important  of  non-financial 
measures  first  of  all  in  that  house.  But  a  single  presentation  of  any 
money  bill  fulfills  the  legal  requirement  and  ensures  that  the  measure 
will  become  law.  For  such  a  bill  will  not  be  presented  until  it  has  been 
passed  by  the  Commons,  and,  emanating  from  the  cabinet,  it  will  not 
be  introduced  in  that  chamber  until  the  assent  of  the  executive  is 
assured.  The  upper  house  is  allowed  one  month  in  which  to  approve 
or  to  reject,  but,  so  far  as  the  enactment  of  the  bill  is  concerned,  the 
result  is  the  same  in  any  case.  Upon  ordinary  legislation  the  House 
of  Lords  possesses  still  a  veto — a  veto,  however,  which  is  no  longer 
absolute  but  only  suspensive.  The  conditions  which  are  required  for 
the  enactment  of  non-fiscal  legislation  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
Lords  are  not  easy  to  bring  about,  but  their  realization  is  not  at  all 
an  impossibility.  By  the  repeated  rejection  of  proposed  measures  the 
Lords  may  influence  public  sentiment  or  bring  about  otherwise  a 
change  of  circumstances  and  thus  compass  the  defeat  of  the  original 
intent  of  the  Commons,  and  this  is  the  more  possible  since  a  minimum 
period  of  two  years  is  required  to  elapse  before  a  non-fiscal  measure 


114  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

can  be  carried  over  the  Lords'  veto.  But  the  continuity  of  political 
alignments  and  of  legislative  policy  is  normally  such  in  Great  Britain 
that  the  remarkable  legislative  precedence  which  has  been  accorded  the 
Commons  must  mean  in  effect  little  less  than  absolute  law-making 
authority. 

118.  Possible  Further  Changes  and  the  Difficulties  Involved.— 
What  the  future  holds  in  store  for  the  House  of  Lords  cannot  be  dis- 
cerned. The  Parliament  Act,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  promises  fur- 
ther legislation  which  will  define  both  the  composition  and  the  powers 
of  a  second  chamber  constituted  on  a  popular  instead  of  an  hereditary 
basis;  but  no  steps  have  as  yet  (1912)  been  taken  publicly  in  this 
direction,  nor  has  any  authoritative  announcement  of  purpose  been 
made.1  Many  Englishmen  to-day  are  of  the  opinion  that,  as  John 
Bright  declared,  "a  hereditary  House  of  Lords  is  not  and  cannot  be 
perpetual  in  a  free  country."  None  the  less,  it  is  recognized  that  the 
chamber  as  it  is  at  present  constituted  contains  a  large  number  of 
conscientious,  eminent,  and  able  men,  that  upon  numerous  occasions 
the  body  has  imposed  a  wholesome  check  upon  the  popular  branch, 
and  that  sometimes  it  has  interpreted  the  will  of  the  nation  more 
correctly  than  has  the  popular  branch  itself.  The  most  reasonable 
programme  of  reform  would  seem  to  be,  not  a  total  reconstitution  of  the 
chamber  upon  a  non-hereditary  basis,  but  (i)  the  adoption  of  the 
Rosebery  principle  that  the  possession  of  a  peerage  shall  not  of  itself 
entitle  the  possessor  to  sit,  (2)  the  admission  to  membership  of  a 
considerable  number  of  persons  representative  of  the  whole  body  of 
peers,  and  (3)  the  introduction  of  a  goodly  quota  of  life  peers,  ap- 
pointed by  reason  of  legal  attainments,  governmental  experience,  and 
other  qualities  of  fitness  and  eminence.2 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  neither  this  programme  nor  any 
other  that  can  be  offered,  unless  it  be  that  of  popular  election,  affords 
much  ground  upon  which  to  hope  for  harmonious  relations  between  the 
upper  chamber  and  a  Liberal  Government.  The  House  of  Lords — any 
House  of  Lords  in  which  members  sit  for  life  or  hi  heredity — is  inevita- 

1  The  Parliament  Act  is  the  handiwork,  of  course,  of  the  Liberal  party,  and  only 
that  party  is  likely  to  acknowledge  the  obligation  to  follow  up  the  reform  of  the 
Lords  which  the  measure  imposes.  But  the  Unionists  may  be  regarded  as  com- 
mitted by  Lord  Lansdowne's  bill  to  some  measure  of  popularization  of  the  chamber. 

J  During  the  discussions  of  1910  an  interesting  suggestion  was  offered  (April  25) 
by  Lord  Wemyss  to  the  effect  that  the  representative  character  of  the  chamber 
should  be  given  emphasis  by  the  admission  of  three  members  designated  by  each 
of  some  twenty-one  commercial,  professional,  and  educational  societies  of  the  king- 
dom, such  as  the  Royal  Academy  of  Arts,  the  Society  of  Engineers,  the  Shipping 
Federation,  and  the  Royal  Institute  of  British  Architects. 


PARLIAMENT:  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  115 

bly  conservative  in  its  political  tendencies  and  sympathies,  which 
means,  as  conditions  are  to-day,  that  the  chamber  is  certain  to  be  dom- 
inated by  adherents  of  the  Unionist  party.  History  shows  that  even 
men  who  are  appointed  to  the  upper  house  as  Liberals  become  adher- 
ents almost  invariably,  in  time,  of  Unionism.  The  consequence  is 
that,  while  a  Unionist  administration  is  certain  to  have  the  support  of 
a  working  majority  in  both  of  the  houses,  a  Liberal  government  can- 
not expect  ever  to  find  itself  in  the  ascendancy  in  the  Lords.  Its 
measures  will  be  easy  to  carry  in  the  lower  house  but  difficult  or  im- 
possible to  carry  in  the  upper  one.  This  was  the  central  fact  in  the  situ- 
ation from  which  sprang  the  Parliament  Act  of  1911.  By  this  piece  of 
legislation  the  Liberals  sought  to  provide  for  themselves  a  mode  of 
escape  from  the  impasse  in  which  the  opposition  of  the  Lords  so 
frequently  has  involved  them.  The  extent,  however,  to  which  the 
arrangements  effected  will  fulfill  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  in- 
tended remains  to  be  ascertained.1  "An  upper  house  in  a  true  parlia- 
mentary system,"  says  Lowell,  "  cannot  be  brought  into  constant 
accord  with  the  dominant  party  of  the  day  without  destroying  its 
independence  altogether;  and  to  make  the  House  of  Lords  a  mere  tool 
in  the  hands  of  every  cabinet  would  be  well-nigh  impossible  and 

1  The  literature  of  the  question  of  second  chamber  reform  in  England  is  volumi- 
nous and  but  a  few  of  the  more  important  titles  can  be  mentioned  here.  The  sub- 
ject is  discussed  briefly  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  22;  Moran, 
English  Government,  Chap,  n;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  13;  and  H. 
W.  V.  Temperley,  Senates  and  Upper  Chambers  (London,  1910),  Chap.  5.  Im- 
portant books  include  W.  C.  Macpherson,  The  Baronage  and  the  Senate;  or  the 
House  of  Lords  in  the  Past,  the  Present,  and  the  Future  (London,  1893);  T.  A. 
Spalding,  The  House  of  Lords:  a  Retrospect  and  a  Forecast  (London,  1894);  J.  W. 
Wylie,  The  House  of  Lords  (London,  1908);  W.  S.  McKechnie,  The  Reform  of  the 
House  of  Lords  (Glasgow,  1909);  W.  L.  Wilson,  The  Case  for  the  House  of  Lords 
(London,  1910);  and  J.  H.  Morgan,  The  House  of  Lords  and  the  Constitution 
(London,  1910).  Of  these,  the  first  constitutes  one  of  the  most  forceful  defenses 
and  the  second  one  of  the  most  incisive  criticisms  of  the  upper  chamber  that  have 
been  written.  A  brief  review  by  an  able  French  writer  is  A.  Esmein,  La  Chambre 
des  Lords  et  la  democratic  (Paris,  1910).  Among  articles  in  periodicals  may  be 
mentioned  H.  W.  Horwill,  The  Problem  of  The  House  of  Lords,  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  March,  1908;  E.  Porritt,  The  Collapse  of  the  Movement  against  the 
Lords,  in  North  American  Review,  June,  1908;  ibid.,  Recent  and  Pending  Consti- 
tutional Changes  in  England,  in  American  Political  Science  Review,  May,  1910; 
J.  L.  Garvin,  The  British  Elections  and  their  Meaning,  in  Fortnightly  Review, 
Feb.,  1910;  J.  A  R.  Marriott,  The  Constitutional  Crisis,  in  Nineteenth  Century, 
Jan.,  1910.  A  readable  sketch  is  A.  L.  P.  Dennis,  Impressions  of  British  Party 
Politics,  1909-1911,  in  American  Political  Science  Review,  Nov.,  1911;  and  the  best 
accounts  of  the  Parliament  Act  and  of  its  history  are:  Dennis,  The  Parliament  Act 
of  1911,  ibid.,  May  and  Aug.,  1912;  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of 
England,  III.,  343-384;  Lowell,  Government  of  England  (rev.  ed.,  New  York,  1912), 


Il6  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

politically  absurd."  1  Therein  must  be  adjudged  still  to  lie  the  essen- 
tial dilemma  of  English  politics. 

Chap.  23a;  Annual  Register  for  the  years  1910  and  1911;  M.  Sibert,  Le  vote  du 
Parliament  Act,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  Jan.-March,  1912;  and  La  r£forme  de  la 
Chambre  des  Lords,  ibid.,  July-Sept.,  1912.  A  book  of  some  value  is  C.  T.  King, 
The  Asquith  Parliament,  1906-1909;  a  Popular  Sketch  of  its  Men  and  its  Meas- 
ures (London,  1910). 

1  Government  of  England,  I.,  418-419. 


CHAPTER  VI 
PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE 

I.  THE  ASSEMBLING  OF  THE  CHAMBERS 

119.  Sessions. — Parliament  is  required  by  statute  to  meet  at  least 
once  in  three  years ; l  but,  by  reason  of  the  enormous  pressure  of  busi- 
ness and,  in  particular,  the  custom  which  forbids  the  voting  of  supplies 
for  a  period  longer  than  one  year,  meetings  are,  in  point  of  fact,  annual. 
A  session  begins  ordinarily  near  the  first  of  February  and  continues, 
with  brief  adjournments  at  holiday  seasons,  until  August  or  September. 
It  is  required  that  the  two  houses  shall  invariably  be  summoned  to- 
gether.   Either  may  adjourn  without  the  other,  and  the  crown  can 
compel  an  adjournment  of  neither.    A  prorogation,  which  brings  a 
session  to  a  close,  and  a  dissolution,  which  brings  the  existence  of  a 
parliament  to  an  end,  must  be  ordered  for  the  two  houses  con- 
jointly.   Both  take  place  technically  at  the  command  of  the  crown, 
actually  upon  the  decision  of  the  ministry.    A  prorogation  is  to  a  spec- 
ified date,  and  it  terminates  all  pending  business;  but  the  reassembling 
of  the  houses  may  be  either  postponed  or  hastened  by  royal  procla- 
mation. 

120.  The  Opening  of  a  Parliament. — At  the  beginning  of  a  session 
the  members  of  the  two  houses  gather  first  of  all  in  their  respective 
chambers.    The  commoners  are  summoned  thereupon  to  the  chamber 
of  the  Lords,  where  the  letters  patent  authorizing  the  session  are 
read  and  the  Lord  Chancellor  makes  known  the  desire  of  the  crown 
that  the  Commons  proceed  with  the  choosing  of  a  Speaker.    The  Com- 
mons withdraw  to  attend  to  this  matter,  and  on  the  next  day  the  newly 
elected  official,  accompanied  by  the  members,  presents  himself  at  the 
bar  of  the  House  of  Lords,  announces  his  election,  and,  through  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  receives  the  royal  approbation.    Having  demanded 
and  received  guarantee  of  the  "ancient  and  undoubted  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  Commons,"  the  Speaker  and  the  members  then  retire 
to  their  own  quarters,  where  the  necessary  oaths  are  administered. 
If,  as  is  not  unusual,  the  king  meets  Parliament  in  person,  he  goes  in 

1  Triennial  Act  of  December  22,  1694. 
117 


Il8  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

state,  probably  the  next  day,  to  the  House  of  Lords  and  takes  his 
seat  upon  the  throne,  and  the  Lord  Chamberlain  is  instructed  to  desire 
the  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  to  command  the  attendance 
once  more  of  the  Commons.  If  the  sovereign  does  not  attend,  the 
Lords  Commissioners  bid  the  Usher  to  desire  the  Commons'  presence. 
In  any  case,  the  commoners  present  themselves  and  the  king  (or,  in 
his  absence,  the  Lord  Chancellor)  reads  the  Speech  from  the  Throne, 
in  which  is  communicated  succinctly  the  nature  of  the  business  to 
which  attention  is  to  be  directed.  Following  the  retirement  of  the 
sovereign,  the  Commons  again  withdraw,  the  Throne  Speech  is  re- 
read and  an  address  in  reply  voted  in  each  house,  and  the  Government 
begins  the  introduction  of  fiscal  and  legislative  proposals.  In  the  event 
that  a  session  is  not  the  first  one  of  a  parliament,  the  election  of  a 
Speaker  and  the  administration  of  oaths  are  omitted.1 

121.  The  Palace  of  Westminster. — From  the  beginning  of  parlia- 
mentary history  the  meeting-place  of  the  houses  has  been  regularly 
Westminster,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Thames.    The  last  parliament 
which  sat  at  any  other  spot  was  the  third  Oxford  Parliament  of  Charles 
II.,  in  1 68 1.    The  Palace  of  Westminster,  in  mediae val  times  outside, 
though  near,  the  principal  city  of  the  kingdom,  was  long  the  most 
important  of  the  royal  residences,  and  it  was  natural  that  its  great 
halls  and  chambers,  together  with  the  adjoining  abbey,  should  be 
utilized  habitually  for  parliamentary  sittings.    Of  the  enormous  struc- 
ture known  as  Westminster  to-day  (still,  technically,  a  royal  palace, 
though  not  a  royal  residence),  practically  all  portions  save  old  West- 
minster Hall  were  constructed  after  the  fire  of  1834.    The  Lords  first 
occupied  their  present  quarters  in  1847  and  the  Commons  theirs  in 
i85o.2 

122.  The  Chambers  of  the  Commons  and  the  Lords. — From  opposite 
sides  of  a  central  lobby  corridors  lead  to  the  halls  in  which  the  sittings 

1  On  the  ceremonies  involved  in  the  opening,  adjournment,  prorogation,  and 
dissolution  of  a  parliament  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I., 
61-77;  J-  Redlich,  The  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons;  a  Study  of  its  History 
and  Present  Form,  trans,  by  A.  E.  Steinthal,  3  vols.  (London,  1908),  II.,  51-67; 
T.  E.  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament 
(nth  ed.,  London,  1906),  Chap.  7;  A.  Wright  and  P.  Smith,  Parliament,  Past  and 
Present,  2  vols.  (London,  1902),  II.,  Chap.  25;  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parlia- 
ment, 96-114,  132-147,  184-203;  and  H.  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Parliaments 
(Boston,  1911),  135-157. 

2  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parliament,  79-95;  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Par- 
liaments, 60-80;  Wright  and  Smith,  Parliament,  Past  and  Present,  I.,  Chaps.  11-13. 
The  classic  history  of  the  old  Palace  of  Westminster  is  E.  W.  Brayley  and  J.  Brit- 
ton,  History  of  the  Ancient  Palace  and  Late  Houses  of  Parliament  at  Westminster 
(London,  1836). 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE    119 

of  the  two  bodies  are  held,  these  halls  facing  each  other  in  such  a  man- 
ner that  the  King's  throne  at  the  south  end  of  the  House  of  Lords  is 
visible  from  the  Speaker's  chair  at  the  north  end  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. The  room  occupied  by  the  Commons  is  not  large,  being  but 
seventy-five  feet  in  length  by  forty-five  in  breadth.  It  is  bisected  by  a 
broad  aisle,  at  the  upper  end  of  which  is  a  large  table  for  the  use  of  the 
clerk  and  his  assistants  and  beyond  this  the  raised  and  canopied  chair 
of  the  Speaker.  "Facing  the  aisle  on  each  side  long  rows  of  high- 
backed  benches,  covered  with  dark  green  leather,  slope  upward  tier 
above  tier  to  the  walls  of  the  room;  and  through  them,  at  right  angles 
to  the  aisle,  a  narrow  passage  known  as  the  gangway,  cuts  across  the 
House.  There  is  also  a  gallery  running  all  around  the  room,  the  part 
of  it  facing  the  Speaker  being  given  up  to  visitors,  while  the  front 
rows  at  the  opposite  end  belong  to  the  reporters,  and  behind  them  there 
stands,  before  a  still  higher  gallery,  a  heavy  screen,  like  those  erected 
in  Turkish  mosques  to  conceal  the  presence  of  women,  and  used  here 
for  the  same  purpose."  *  The  rows  of  benches  on  the  gallery  sides  are 
reserved  for  members,  but  they  do  not  afford  a  very  desirable  location 
and  are  rarely  occupied,  save  upon  occasions  of  special  interest.  In 
the  body  of  the  house  there  are  fewer  than  350  seats  for  670  members. 
As  a  rule,  not  even  all  of  these  are  occupied,  for  there  are  no  desks  and 
the  member  who  wishes  to  read,  write,  or  otherwise  occupy  himself 
seeks  the  library  or  other  rooms  adjoining.  The  front  bench  at  the 
upper  end  of  the  aisle,  at  the  right  of  the  Speaker,  is  known  as  the 
Treasury  Bench  and  is  reserved  for  members  of  the  Government.  The 
corresponding  bench  at  the  Speaker's  left  is  reserved  similarly  for  the 
leaders  of  the  Opposition.  In  so  far  as  is  possible  in  the  lack  of  a  def- 
inite assignment  of  seats,  members  of  avowed  party  allegiance  range 
themselves  behind  their  leaders,  while  members  of  more  independent 
attitude  seek  places  below  the  gangway.  "The  accident  that  the 
House  of  Commons  sits  in  a  narrow  room  with  benches  facing  each 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  249.  Visitors,  technically  "strangers,"  are 
present  only  on  sufferance  and  may  be  excluded  at  any  time;  but  the  ladies'  gallery 
is  not  supposed  to  be  within  the  chamber,  so  that  an  order  of  exclusion  does  not 
reach  the  occupants  of  it.  In  the  autumn  of  1908,  however,  the  disorderly  con- 
duct of  persons  in  the  ladies'  and  strangers'  galleries  caused  the  Speaker  to  close 
these  galleries  during  the  remainder  of  the  session.  In  1738  the  House  declared 
the  publication  of  its  proceedings  "a  high  indignity  and  a  notorious  breach  of 
privilege,"  and,  technically,  such  publication  is  still  illegal.  In  1771,  however,  the 
reporters'  gallery  was  fitted  up,  and  through  a  century  and  a  quarter  the  proceed- 
ings have  been  reported  and  printed  as  a  matter  of  course.  On  the  status  of  the 
public  and  the  press  in  the  chamber  see  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  8;  Redlich, 
Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons;  II.,  28-38;  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Par- 
liament, 310-329,  350-365;  and  H.  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Parliaments,  259-287. 


120  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

other,  and  not,  like  most  continental  legislatures,  in  a  semi-circular 
space,  with  seats  arranged  like  those  of  a  theatre,  makes  for  the  two- 
party  system  and  against  groups  shading  into  each  other."  l 

The  hall  occupied  by  the  Lords  is  smaller  and  more  elaborately 
decorated  than  that  occupied  by  the  Commons.  It  contains  cross 
benches,  but  in  the  main  the  arrangements  that  have  been  described 
are  duplicated  in  it.  For  social  and  ceremonial  purposes  there  exists 
among  the  members  a  fixed  order  of  precedence.2  In  the  chamber, 
however,  the  seating  is  arranged  without  regard  to  this  order,  save 
that  the  bishops  sit  in  a  group.  The  Government  peers  occupy  the 
benches  on  the  right  of  the  woolsack  and  the  Opposition  those  on  the 
left,  while  members  who  prefer  to  remain  neutral  take  their  places 
on  the  cross  benches  between  the  table  and  the  bar.3 


II.  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  COMMONS 

123.  Hours  of  Sittings. — In  the  seventeenth  century  the  sittings 
of  the  Commons  began  regularly  at  8.30  or  9  o'clock  in  the  morning 
and  terminated  with  nightfall.  In  the  eighteenth  century,  and  far 
into  the  nineteenth,  they  were  apt  to  begin  as  late  as  3  or  4  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon  and  to  be  prolonged,  at  least  not  infrequently,  until 
toward  daybreak.  In  1888,  however,  a  standing  order  fixed  midnight 
as  the  hour  for  the  "interrupting  "  of  ordinary  business,  and  in  1906 
the  hour  was  made  n  o'clock.  Nowadays  the  House  meets  regularly 
on  Mondays,  Tuesdays,  Wednesdays,  and  Thursdays  at  2.45  and 
continues  in  session  throughout  the  evening,  the  interval  formerly 
allowed  for  dinner  having  been  abolished  in  1906.  On  Fridays,  set 
apart,  until  late  in  the  session,  for  the  consideration  of  private  mem- 
bers' bills,  the  hour  of  convening  is  12  o'clock.  At  sittings  on  days 
other  than  Friday  the  first  hour  or  more  is  consumed  usually  with 
small  items  of  formal  business  and  with  the  asking  and  answering  of 
questions  addressed  to  the  ministers,  so  that  the  public  business  set 
for  the  day  is  reached  at  approximately  4  o'clock.4 

1  Ilbert,  Parliament,  124.    The  chamber  is  described  fully  in  Wright  and  Smith, 
Parliament,  Past  and  Present,  Chap.  19. 

2  This  order  runs:  Prince  of  Wales,  other  princes  of  the  royal  blood,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  Lord  Chancellor,  Archbishop  of  York,  Lord  President  of  the  Coun- 
cil, Lord  Privy  Seal,  the  dukes,  the  marquises,  the  earls,  the  viscounts,  the  bishops, 
and  the  barons. 

3  For  full  description,  with  illustrations,  see  Wright  and  Smith,  Parliament,  Past 
and  Present,  Chap.  18. 

4  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II.,  68-77. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     121 

124.  Officers. — The  principal  officers  of  the  House  are  the  Speaker, 
the  Clerk  and  his  two  assistants,  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  his  deputies, 
the  Chaplain,  and  the  Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  of  Ways  and 
Means.    The  Clerk  and  the  Sergeant-at-Arms,  together  with  their 
assistants,  are  appointed  for  life  by  the  crown,  on  nomination  of  the 
premier,  but  the  Speaker  and  the  Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  of 
Ways  and  Means  are  elected  for  a  single  parliament  by  the  House.1 
All  save  the  Chairman  and  his  deputy  are,  strictly,  non-political  of- 
ficers.   The  Clerk  signs  all  orders  of  the  House,  indorses  bills  sent  or 
returned  to  the  Lords,  reads  whatever  is  required  to  be  read  during 
the  sittings,  records  the  proceedings  of  the  chamber,  and,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Speaker,  supervises  the  preparation  of  the  official 
Journal.    The  Sergeant-at-Arms  attends  the  Speaker,  enforces  the 
House's  orders,  and  presents  at  the  bar  of  the  House  persons  ordered 
or  qualified  to  be  so  presented.    The  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means 
(in  his  absence  the  Deputy  Chairman)  presides  over  the  deliberations 
of  the  House  when  the  body  sits  as  a  committee  of  the  whole  2  and 
exercises  supervision  over  private  bill  legislation.    Although  a  political 
official,  he  preserves,  in  both  capacities,  a  strictly  non-partisan  at- 
titude. 

125.  The  Speakership. — The  speakership  arose  from  the  need  of  the 
House  when  it  was  merely  a  petitioning  body  for  a  recognized  spokes- 
man, and  although  the  known  succession  of  Speakers  begins  with 
Sir  Thomas  Hungerford,  who  held  the  office  in  the  last  parliament 
of  Edward  III.  (1377),  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  at  even 
an  earlier  date  there  were  men  whose  functions  were  substantially 
equivalent.    The  Speaker  is  elected  at  the  beginning  of  a  parliament 
by  and  from  the  members  of  the  House,  and  his  tenure  of  office,  unless 
terminated  by  resignation  or  death,  continues  through  the  term  of  that 
parliament.    The  choice  of  the  House  is  subject  to  the  approval  of  the 
crown;  but,  whereas  in  earlier  days  the  king's  will  was  at  this  point  very 
influential,  the  last  occasion  upon  which  a  Speaker-elect  was  rejected 
by  the  crown  was  in  1679.    Though  nominally  elected,  the  Speaker 
is  in  fact  chosen  by  the  ministry,  and  he  is  pretty  certain  to  be  taken, 
in  the  first  instance,  from  the  party  in  power.    During  the  nineteenth 
century,  however,  it  became  customary  to  re-elect  a  Speaker  as  long 
as  he  should  be  willing  to  serve,  regardless  of  party  affiliation. 

126.  The  Speaker's  Functions  and  Powers. — The  functions  of  the 
Speaker  are  regulated  in  part  by  custom,  in  part  by  rules  of  the  House, 

1  In  point  of  fact,  the  Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  retire  when  the  ministry 
by  which  they  have  been  nominated  goes  out  of  office. 

2  On  this  account  he  is  referred  to  ordinarily  as  the  Chairman  of  Committees. 


122  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  in  part  by  general  legislation.  They  are  numerous  and,  in  the 
aggregate,  highly  important.  The  Speaker  is,  first  of  all,  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  House.  In  this  capacity  he  is  a  strictly  non-partisan 
moderator  whose  business  it  is  to  maintain  decorum  in  deliberations, 
decide  points  of  order,  put  questions,  and  announce  the  result  of 
divisions.  The  non-partisan  aspect  of  the  English  speakership  sets 
the  office  off  in  sharp  contrast  with  its  American  counterpart.  "It 
makes  little  difference  to  any  English  party  in  Parliament,"  says  Mr. 
Bryce,  "whether  the  occupant  of  the  chair  has  come  from  their  own 
or  from  hostile  ranks.  ...  A  custom  as  strong  as  law  forbids  him  to 
render  help  to  his  own  side  even  by  private  advice.  Whatever  informa- 
tion as  to  parliamentary  law  he  may  feel  free  to  give  must  be  equally 
at  the  disposal  of  every  member."  1  Except  in  the  event  of  a  tie,  the 
Speaker  does  not  vote,  even  when,  the  House  being  in  committee,  he  is 
not  occupying  the  chair.  In  the  second  place,  the  Speaker  is  the 
spokesman  and  representative  of  the  House,  whether  in  demanding 
privileges,  communicating  resolutions,  or  issuing  warrants.  There  was 
a  time  when  he  was  hardly  less  the  spokesman  of  the  king  than  the 
spokesman  of  the  Commons,  but  the  growth  of  independence  of  the 
popular  chamber  enabled  him  long  ago  to  cast  off  this  dual  and  ex- 
tremely difficult  role.  The  Speaker,  furthermore,  declares  and  in- 
terprets, though  he  in  no  case  makes,  the  law  of  the  House.  "  Where," 
says  Ilbert,  "precedents,  rulings,  and  the , orders  of  the  House  are 
insufficient  or  uncertain  guides,  he  has  to  consider  what  course  would 
be  most  consistent  with  the  usages,  traditions,  and  dignity  of  the 
House,  and  the  rights  and  interests  of  its  members,  and  on  these  points 
his  advice  is  usually  followed,  and  his  decisions  are  very  rarely  ques- 
tioned. .  .  .  For  many  generations  the  deference  habitually  paid 
to  the  occupant  of  the  chair  has  been  the  theme  of  admiring  comment 
by  foreign  observers."  2  Finally,  the  fact  should  be  noted  that  by  the 
Parliament  Act  of  1911  the  Speaker  is  given  sole  power,  when  question 
arises,  to  determine  whether  a  given  measure  is  or  is  not  to  be  con- 
sidered a  money  bill.3  Upon  his  decision  may  hinge  the  entire  policy 
of  the  Government  respecting  a  measure,  and  even  the  fate  of  the 
measure  itself.  The  Speaker's  symbol  of  authority  is  the  mace,  which 
is  carried  before  him  when  he  formally  enters  or  leaves  the  House  and 
lies  on  the  table  before  him  when  he  is  in  the  chair.  He  has  an  official 
residence  in  Westminster,  and  he  receives  a  salary  of  £5,000  a  year 
which  is  paid  from  the  Consolidated  Fund,  being  on  that  account  not 

1  American  Commonwealth,  I.,  135. 

2  Parliament,  140-141. 
8  See  p.  112. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     123 

subject  to  change  when  the  annual  appropriation  bills  are  under  con- 
sideration. At  retirement  from  office  a  Speaker  is  likely  to  be  pen- 
sioned and  to  be  elevated  to  the  peerage.1 

127.  Quorum. — As  fixed  by  a  resolution  of  1640,  a  quorum  for  the 
transaction  of  business  in  the  Commons  is  forty.    If  at  any  time  during 
a  sitting  the  attention  of  the  Speaker  is  directed  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  not  forty  members  present,  the  two-minute  sand-glass  which  stands 
upon  the  Clerk's  table  is  inverted  and  the  members  are  summoned 
from  all  portions  of  the  building  as  for  a  division.    At  the  close  of  the 
allotted  two  minutes  the  Speaker  counts  the  members  present,  and  if 
there  be  not  forty  the  House  adjourns  until  the  time  fixed  for  the  next 
regular  sitting.    Except  upon  occasions  of  special  interest,  the  number 
of  members  actually  occupying  the  benches  is  likely  to  be  less  than  two 
hundred,  although  most  of  the  remaining  members  are  within  the 
building  or,  in  any  case,  not  far  distant. 

128.  Kinds  of  Committees. — Like  all  important  and  numerous 
legislative  bodies,  the  House  of  Commons  expedites  the  transaction  of 
the  business  which  devolves  upon  it  through  the  employment  of  com- 
mittees.   As  early  as  the  period  of  Elizabeth  the  reference  of  a  bill, 
after  its  second  reading,  to  a  select  committee  was  an  established  prac- 
tice, and  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  it  became  not  uncommon  to  refer 
measures  to  committees  of  the  whole  house.    The  committees  of  the 
House  to-day  may  be  grouped  in  five  categories:  (i)  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole;  (2)  select  comniittees_oji_rjublic  bills;  (3)  sessionaTcoTh- 
mittees;  (4)  standing^cpmmittees  on  jMiblir  bills;  and  (5)  committees 
on  private  bills.    Until  1907  a  public  bill,  after  its  second  reading, 
went  normally  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole;  since  the  date  men- 
tioned, it  goes  there  only  if  the  House  so  determines.    The  Committee 
of  the  Whole  is  simply  the  House  of  Commons,  presided  over  by  the 
Chairman  of  Committees  in  the  place  of  the  Speaker,  and  acting  under 
rules  of  procedure  which  permit  virtually  unrestricted  discussion  and 
in  other  ways  lend  themselves  to  the  free  consideration  of  the  details 
of  a  measure.    When  the  subject  in  hand  relates  to  the  providing  of 
revenue  the  body  is  known,  technically,  as  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means;  when  to  appropriations,  it  is  styled  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  Supply,  or  simply  the  Committee  of  Supply. 

1  On  the  officers  of  the  House  of  Commons  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England, 
I.,  Chap.  12;  on  the  speakership,  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II., 
131-171;  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Parliaments,  119-134;  MacDonaugh,  The  Book 
of  Parliament,  115-132;  Porritt,  Unreformed  House  of  Commons,  I.,  Chaps.  21-22; 
A.  I.  Dasent,  The  Speakers  of  the  House  of  Commons  from  the  Earliest  Times  to 
the  Present  Day  (New  York,  1911);  and  G.  Mer,  Les  speakers:  6tude  de  la  fonction 
presidentielle  en  Angleterre  et  aux  fitats-Unis  (Paris,  1910). 


124  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

129.  Select  and  Sessional  Committees. — Select  committees  consist, 
as  a  rule,  of  fifteen  members  and  are  constituted  to  investigate  and 
report  upon  specific  subjects  or  measures.    It  is  through  them  that  the 
House  collects  evidence,  examines  witnesses,  and  otherwise  obtains 
the  information  required  for  intelligent  legislation.     After  a  select 
committee  has  fulfilled  the  immediate  purpose  for  which  it  was  con- 
stituted it  passes  out  of  existence.    Each  such  committee  chooses  its 
chairman,  and  each  keeps  detailed  records  of  its  proceedings,  which 
are  included,  along  with  its  formal  report,  in  the  published  parlia- 
mentary papers  of  the  session.    The  members  may  be  elected  by  the 
House,  but  in  practice  the  appointment  of  some  or  all  is  left  to  the 
Committee  of  Selection,  which  itself  consists  of  eleven  members  chosen 
by  the  House  at  the  beginning  of  each  session.    This  Committee  of 
Selection,  which  appoints  members  not  only  of  select  committees  but 
also  of  standing  committees  and  of  committees  on  private  and  local 
bills,  is  made  up  after  conference  between  the  leaders  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  of  the  Opposition;  and  the  committees  whose  members  it 
designates  are  always  so  constituted  that  they  contain  a  majority 
favorable  to  the  Government.    The  number  of  select  committees  is, 
of  course,  variable,  but  it  is  never  small.    A  few  are  constituted  for 
an  entire  year  and  are  known  as  sessional  committees.    Of  these,  the 
Committee  of  Selection  is  itself  an  example;  others  are  the  Committee 
on  Public  Accounts  and  the  Committee  on  Public  Petitions. 

130.  Standing   Committees. — Beginning    in    1882,    certain    great 
standing  committees  have  been  created,  to  the  general  end  that  the 
time  of  the  House  may  be  further  economized.    Through  a  change  of 
the  standing  orders  of  the  chamber  effected  in  1907  the  number  of 
such  committees  was  raised  from  two  to  four,  and  all  bills  except  money 
bills,  private  bills,  and  bills  for  confirming  provisional  orders — that  is 
to  say,  all  public  non-fiscal  proposals — are  required  to  be  referred  to 
one  of  these  committees  (the  Speaker  to  determine  which  one)  unless 
the  House  otherwise  directs.    It  is  expected  that  measures  so  referred 
will  be  so  fully  considered  in  committee  that  they  will  consume  but 
little  of  the  time  of  the  House.    Each  of  the  four  committees  consists 
of  from  sixty  to  eighty  members,  who  are  named  by  the  Committee 
of  Selection  in  such  a  manner  that  in  personnel  they  will  represent 
faithfully  the  composition  of  the  House  as  a  whole.    One  of  them, 
consisting  of  all  the  representatives  of  Scotch  constituencies  and 
fifteen  other  members,  is  constituted  with  a  special  view  to  the  trans- 
action of  business  relating  to  Scotland.    The  chairmen  of  the  four 
are  selected  (from  its  own  ranks)  by  a  "chairman's  panel  "  of  not  more 
than  eight  members  designated  by  the  Committee  of  Selection.    The 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     125 

procedure  of  the  standing  committees  is  closely  assimilated  to  that  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and,  in  truth,  they  serve  essentially  as 
substitutes  for  the  larger  body.1 


III.  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  LORDS 

131.  Sittings  and  Attendance. — It  is  required  that  the  two  houses 
of  Parliament  shall  be  convened  invariably  together,  and  one  may  not 
be  prorogued  without  the  other.    The  actual  sittings  of  the  Lords  are, 
however,  very  much  briefer  and  more  leisurely  than  are  those  of  the 
Commons.     Normally  the  upper  chamber  meets  but  four  times  a 
week — on  Mondays,  Thursdays,  and  Fridays  at  4.30  o'clock  and  on 
Tuesdays  at  5.30.    By  reason  of  lack  of  business  or  indisposition  to 
consume  time  in  the  consideration  of  measures  whose  eventual  enact- 
ment is  assured,  sittings  not  infrequently  are  concluded  within  an 
hour,  although,  of  course,  there  are  occasions  upon  which  the  cham- 
ber deliberates  seriously  and  at  much  length.    A  quorum  for  the 
transaction  of  business  is  fixed  at  the  number  three;  although  it 
is  but  fair  to  observe  that  if  a  division  occurs  upon  a  bill  and  it  is 
found  that  there  are  not  thirty  members  present  the  question  is  de- 
clared not  to  be  decided.    Save  upon  formal  occasions  and  at  times 
when  there  is  under  consideration  a  measure  in  whose  fate  the 
members  are  immediately  interested,  attendance  is  always  meager. 
There  are  members  who  after  complying  with  the  formalities  incident 
to  the  assumption  of  a  seat,  rarely,  and  in  some  instances  never,  re- 
appear among  their  colleagues.    It  thus  comes  about  that  despite 
the  fact  that  nominally  the  House"  of  Lords  is  one  of  the  largest  of  the 
world's  law-making  assemblies,  the  chamber  exhibits  in  reality  little 
of  the  unwieldiness  ordinarily  characteristic  of  deliberative  bodies  of 
such  magnitude.    The  efficiency  of  the  chamber  is  more  likely  to  be 
impaired  by  paucity  of  attendance  than  otherwise. 

132.  Officers. — The  officers  of  the  House  of  Lords  are  largely  ap- 
pointive, though  in  part  elective.    Except  during  the  trial  of  a  peer,2 
the  presiding  official  is  the  Lord  Chancellor,  appointed  by  the  crown 
on  the  advice  of  the  premier.    The  duty  of  presiding  in  the  Lords,  as 
has  been  explained,  is  but  one  of  many  that  fall  to  this  remarkable 

1  On  committees  on  private  bills  see  p.  137.    The  committees  of  the  House  of 
Commons  are  described  in  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  13;  Marriott, 
English  Political  Institutions,  Chap,  n;  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  6;  Redlich, 
Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  II.,  180-214;  and  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law, 
Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps.  13-14. 

2  See  p.  127. 


126  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

dignitary.1  If  at  the  time  of  his  appointment  an  incumbent  is  not  a 
peer  he  is  reasonably  certain  to  be  created  one,  although  there  is  no 
legal  requirement  to  this  effect.  The  theory  is  that  the  woolsack  which 
comprises  the  presiding  official's  seat  is  not  within  the  chamber  proper  2 
and  that  the  official  himself,  as  such,  is  not  a  member  of  the  body. 
The  powers  allowed  him  are  not  even  those  commonly  possessed  by  a 
moderator.  In  the  event  that  two  or  more  peers  request  the  privilege 
of  addressing  the  chamber,  the  peers  themselves  decide  which  shall 
have  the  floor.  Order  in  debate  is  enforced,  not  by  the  Chancellor, 
but  by  the  members,  and  when  they  speak  they  address,  not  the  chair, 
but  "My  Lords."  Although,  if  a  peer,  the  Chancellor  may  speak  and 
vote  as  any  other  member,  he  possesses  as  presiding  officer  no  power 
of  the  casting  vote.  In  short,  the  position  which  the  Chancellor  oc- 
cupies in  the  chamber  is  all  but  purely  formal.  In  addition  to  "  deputy 
speakers,"  designated  to  preside  in  the  Chancellor's  absence,  the  re- 
maining officials  of  the  Lords  who  owe  their  positions  to  governmental 
appointment  are  the  Clerk  of  Parliament,  who  keeps  the  records;  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms,  who  attends  personally  the  presiding  officer  and 
acts  as  custodian  of  the  mace;  and  the  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black 
Rod,  a  pompous  dignitary  whose  function  it  is  to  summon  the  Com- 
mons when  their  attendance  is  required  and  to  play  a  more  or  less 
useful  part  upon  other  ceremonial  occasions.  The  one  important 
official  whom  the  House  itself  elects  is  the  Lord  Chairman  of  Com- 
mittees, whose  duty  it  is  to  preside  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

IV.  PRIVILEGES  OF  THE  HOUSES  AND  OF  MEMBERS 

133.  Nature  and  Extent  of  Privileges. — On  the  basis  in  part  of 
custom  and  in  part  of  statute  there  exists  a  body  of  definitely  estab- 
lished privileges,  some  of  which  appertain  to  the  Commons  as  a  cham- 
ber, some  similarly  to  the  Lords,  and  some  to  the  individual  members 
of  both  houses.  The  privileges  which  at  the  opening  of  a  parlia- 
ment the  newly-elected  Speaker  requests  and,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
obtains  for  the  chamber  over  which  he  presides  include  principally 
those  of  freedom  from  arrest,  freedom  of  speech,  access  to  the  sov- 
ereign, and  a  "favorable  construction  "  upon  the  proceedings  of  the 
House.  Freedom  from  arrest  is  enjoyed  by  members  during  a  session 
and  a  period  of  forty  days  before  and  after  it,  but  it  does  not  protect 

1  See  p.  63. 

2  In  the  days  of  Elizabeth  the  oresiding  official  sat  upon  a  sack  actually  filled 
with  wool.    He  sits  now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  upon  an  ottoman,  upholstered  in  red 
But  the  ancient  designation  of  the  seat  survives. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     127 

a  member  from  the  consequences  of  any  indictable  offense  nor,  in 
civil  actions,  from  any  process  save  arrest.  Freedom  of  speech,  finally 
guaranteed  effectually  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  means  simply  that  a 
member  may  not  be  held  to  account  by  legal  process  outside  Parlia- 
ment for  anything  he  may  have  said  in  the  course  of  the  debates  or 
proceedings  of  the  chamber  to  which  he  belongs.  The  right  of  access 
to  the  sovereign  belongs  to  the  Commons  collectively  through  the 
Speaker,  but  to  the  Lords  individually.  With  the  growth  of  parlia- 
mentary government  both  it  and  the  privilege  of  "favorable  construc- 
tion" have  ceased  to  possess  practical  importance.  Another  privilege 
which  survives  is  that  of  exemption  from  jury  duty,  though  no  longer 
of  refusing  to  attend  court  in  the  capacity  of  a  witness.  Each  house 
enjoys  the  privilege — for  all  practical  purposes  now  the  right — of 
regulating  its  own  proceedings,  of  committing  persons  for  contempt, 
and  of  deciding  contested  elections.  The  last-mentioned  function 
the  House  of  Commons,  however,  has  delegated  to  the  courts.  A  priv- 
ilege jealously  retained  by  the  Lords  is  that  of  trial  in  all  cases  of 
treason  or  felony  by  the  upper  chamber  itself,  under  the  presidency  of 
a  Lord  High  Steward  appointed  by  the  crown.  The  Lords  are  exempt 
from  arrest  in  civil  causes,  not  merely  during  and  immediately  pre- 
ceding and  succeeding  sessions,  but  at  all  times,  and  they  enjoy  all 
the  rights,  privileges,  and  distinctions  which,  through  law  or  custom, 
have  become  inherent  in  their  several  dignities. 

134.  Payment  of  Members  of  the  Commons. — Until  recently  the 
fact  that  there  was  no  salary  attached  to  service  in  Parliament  op- 
erated to  debar  from  election  to  the  Commons  men  who  were  not  of 
independent  means.  Through  some  years  the  Labor  Party  was  ac- 
customed to  provide  funds  wherewith  its  representatives  were  enabled 
to  maintain  themselves  at  the  capital,1  but  this  arrangement  affected 
only  a  small  group  of  members  and  was  of  an  entirely  private  and 
casual  nature.  Public  and  systematic  payment  of  members,  to  the 
end  that  poor  but  capable  men  might  not  be  kept  out  of  the  Commons, 
was  demanded  by  the  Chartists  three-quarters  of  a  century  ago,  and 
from  time  to  time  after  1870  there  was  agitation  in  behalf  of  such 
a  policy.  In  1893,  and  again  in  1895,  a  resolution  in  favor  of  the 
payment  of  members  was  adopted  in  the  Commons,  and  March  7, 
1906,  a  resolution  was  carried  to  the  effect  that  every  member  should 
be  paid  a  salary  of  £300  annually.  But  it  was  not  until  1911  that  a 
measure  of  the  kind  could  be  got  through  the  upper  chamber.  Fresh 
impetus  was  afforded  by  the  Osborne  Judgment,  in  which,  on  an  appeal 
from  the  lower  courts,  the  House  of  Lords  ruled  in  December,  1909, 
1  The  sum  provided  from  the  party  funds  was  ordinarily  £200  a  year. 


128  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

that  the  payment  of  parliamentary  members  as  such  from  the  dues 
collected  by  labor  organizations  was  contrary  to  law.  The  announce- 
ment of  the  Judgment  was  followed  by  persistent  agitation  for  legisla- 
tion to  reverse  the  ruling.  In  connection  with  the  budget  presented  to 
the  Commons  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  May  16,  1911,  the 
proposition  was  made,  not  to  take  action  one  way  or  the  other  upon 
the  Lords'  decision,  but  to  provide  for  the  payment  to  all  non-official 
members  of  the  House  of  Commons  of  a  yearly  salary  of  £400;  and 
with  little  delay  and  no  great  amount  of  opposition  the  proposal  was 
enacted  into  law.  The  amount  of  the  salary  provided  is  not  large, 
but  it  is  ample  to  render  candidacy  for  seats  possible  for  numbers  of 
men  who  formerly  could  not  under  any  circumstances  have  con- 
templated a  public  career.1 


V.  THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  PARLIAMENT 

When  the  king  summons  the  two  chambers  he  does  so,  "being  desir- 
ous and  resolved  as  soon  as  may  be  to  meet  his  people,  and  to  have 
their  advice  in  Parliament."  No  mention  is  made  of  legislative  or 
financial  business,  and,  technically,  Parliament  is  still  essentially  what 
originally  it  was  exclusively,  i.  e.,  a  purely  deliberative  assemblage. 
Practically,  however,  the  mere  discussion  of  public  questions  and  the 
giving  of  advice  to  the  crown  has  become  but  one  of  several  distinctive 
parliamentary  functions.  The  newer  functions  which,  with  the  pass- 
ing of  time,  have  acquired  ever  increasing  importance  are,  in  effect, 
three.  The  first  is  that  of  criticism,  involving  the  habitual  scrutiny 
and  control  of  the  measures  of  the  executive  and  administrative  or- 
gans. The  second  is  the  exercise,  under  limitations  to  be  described, 
of  the  power  of  judicature.  The  third,  and  much  the  most  im- 
portant, is  the  function  of  public  and  private  legislation  and  of  fiscal 
control. 

136.  Criticism:  Ministerial  Responsibility. — Parliament  does  not 
govern  and  is  not  intended  to  govern.  Never  save  when  the  Long 
Parliament  undertook  the  administration  of  public  affairs  through 
committees  of  its  members  has  Parliament  asserted  a  disposition  to 
gather  immediately  into  its  own  hands  those  powers  of  state  which  are 
executive  in  character.  At  the  same  time,  the  growth  of  parliamentary 
government  has  meant  the  establishment  of  a  connection  between  the 

1  On  the  privileges  of  the  Commons  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, L,  153-189;  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap,  n;  Walpole,  Electorate 
and  Legislature,  Chap.  5;  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  III.,  42-50. 
A  standard  work  in  which  the  subject  is  dealt  with  at  length  is  May,  Treatise  on  the 
Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps.  3-6. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     129 

executive  and  the  parliamentary  chambers  (principally  the  Commons) 
as  close  as  may  be  so  long  as  separateness  of  organization  is  still 
maintained.  The  officials  who  comprise  the  working  executive  are  in- 
variably members  of  Parliament.  They  initiate  public  measures, 
introduce  them,  advocate  and  defend  them,  and,  in  general,  guide  and 
control  the  conduct  of  public  business  both  inside  and  outside  the 
chambers.  But  for  every  act  they  are  responsible  directly  to  the  House 
of  Commons.  They  may  continue  in  power  only  so  long  as  they  are 
supported  by  a  majority  in  that  chamber.  And  their  conduct  is 
subject  continually  to  review  and  criticism,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  questions,  formal  inquiries,  and,  if  need  be,  judicial 
procedure. 

It  is  within  the  competence  of  any  member  to  address  a  question 
to  any  minister  of  the  crown  who  is  also  a  member,  to  obtain  informa- 
tion. Except  in  special  cases,  notice  of  questions  must  be  given  at 
least  one  day  in  advance,  and  a  period  of  approximately  three-quarters 
of  an  hour  is  set  apart  at  four  sittings  every  week  for  the  asking  and 
answering  of  such  questions.  A  minister  may  answer  or  decline  to 
answer,  but  unless  a  declination  can  be  shown  to  arise  from  legitimate 
considerations  of  public  interest  its  effect  politically  may  be  embar- 
rassing. In  any  event,  there  is  no  debate,  and  in  this  respect  the 
English  practice  differs  from  the  French  "interpellation."  J  The 
asking  of  questions  is  liable  to  abuse  but,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Ilbert, 
"  there  is  no  more  valuable  safeguard  against  maladministration,  no 
more  effective  method  of  bringing  the  searchlight  of  criticism  to  bear 
on  the  action  or  inaction  of  the  executive  government  and  its  sub- 
ordinates. A  minister  has  to  be  constantly  asking  himself,  not  merely 
whether  his  proceedings  and  the  proceedings  of  those  for  whom  he  is 
responsible  are  legally  or  technically  defensible,  but  what  kind  of  an- 
swer he  can  give  if  questioned  about  them  in  the  House,  and  how  that 
answer  will  be  received."  2  Any  member  is  privileged  to  bring  forward 
a  motion  censuring  the  Government  or  any  member  or  department 
thereof,  and  a  motion  of  this  sort,  when  emanating  from  the  leader  of 
the  Opposition,  constitutes  a  vote  of  confidence  upon  whose  result 
may  depend  the  continued  tenure  of  the  ministry.  By  a  call  upon  the 
Government  or  a  given  department  for  information,  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  parliamentary  committees,  departmental  committees,  or  royal 
commissions,  and,  in  particular  by  taking  advantage  of  the  numberless 
opportunities  afforded  by  the  enactment  of  appropriation  bills,  the 
House  of  Commons  may  further  impose  upon  the  executive  the  most 

1  See  p.  314. 
•Parliament,  113-114. 


130  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

thoroughgoing  responsibility  and  control.  "A  strong  executive  govern- 
ment, tempered  and  controlled  by  constant,  vigilant,  and  representa- 
tive criticism,"  is  the  ideal  at  which  the  parliamentary  institutions  of 
Great  Britain  are  aimed.1 

136.  Judicial  Powers :  Impeachment  and  Attainder. — The  functions 
of  a  judicial  character  which,  in  the  capacity  of  the  High  Court  of 
Parliament,  the  two  chambers  fulfill  are  of  secondary  importance  and 
do  not  call  for  extended  discussion.    So  far  as  the  law  of  the  subject 
goes,  they  comprise  (i)  the  powers  possessed  by  each  of  the  houses 
to  deal  with  the  constitution  and  conduct  of  its  own  membership; 
(2)  the  power  of  the  Lords  to  try  their  own  members  when  charged 
with  treason  or  felony;  (3)  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords  in  the  capacity 
of  a  final  court  of  appeal  for  the  United  Kingdom;  (4)  the  power 
of  the  two  houses,  acting  jointly,  to  carry  through  impeachments  of 
public  officers  and  to  enact  bills  of  attainder;  and  (5)  the  effecting  of 
the  removal  of  certain  kinds  of  public  officers  through  the  agency  of 
an  address  from  both  houses  to  the  crown.    In  days  when  the  king 
and  the  ministers  were  disposed  to  defy  the  law  and  to  evade  respon- 
sibility the  power  of  impeachment  by  the  Commons  at  the  bar  of  the 
Lords,  originated  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  was  of  the 
utmost  importance.     When,  however,  the  House  of  Commons  pro- 
gressed in  competence  to  the  point  where  it  was  able  to  review  and 
control  the  conduct  of  ministers  with  such  thoroughness  and  continuity 
as  to  make  it  impossible  for  them  to  conduct  business  without  a 
parliamentary  majority,  impeachment  lost  its  value  and  fell  into 
disuse.    The  last  occasion  upon  which  impeachment  proceedings  were 
instituted  was  in  i8*5.2    Procedure  by  bill  of  attainder,  arising  from 
the  legislative  omnipotence  of  Parliament  and  following  the  ordinary 
course  of  legislation,  is  also  obsolete.  fj 

137.  The  House  of  Lords  as  a  Court. — Most  important  among 
surviving  parliamentary  functions  of  a  judicial  character  is  the  exercise 
of  appellate  jurisdiction  by  the  House  of  Lordsnhe  judicial  author- 
ity of  the  Lords  is  an  anomaly,  although  aiTlt  is  actually  exercised  it 
does  not  seriously  contravene  the  principle  which  forbids  the  bring- 
ing together  of  judicial  and  legislative  powers  in  the  same  hands. 
Historically,  it  arose  from  a  confusion  of  the  functions  of  two  groups 
of  men  which  were  long  largely  identical  in  personnel,  i.  e.,  the  Great 

Albert,  Parliament,  119.  On  the  Commons'  control  of  the  Government  see 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  17;  Moran,  English  Government, 
Chap.  8;  Low,  The  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  5;  Todd,  Parliamentary 
Government,  II.,  164-185. 

3Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  362-366;  Moran,  English 
Government,  327-332. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     131 

Council,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Lords  of  Parliament,  on  the  other. 
In  the  reign  of  Henry  IV.  the  Commons  asked  specifically  to  be  re- 
lieved from  judicial  business,  and  the  parliamentary  jurisdiction  which 
survived  was  recognized  thereafter  to  be  vested  in  the  House  of  Lords 
alone.  From  an  early  date  this  jurisdiction  was,  as  it  is  to-day,  both 
original  and  appellate.  As  a  court  of  first  instance  the  chamber  ac- 
quired the  right  to  try  peers  charged  with  treason  and  felony  and,  on 
the  accusation  of  the  House  of  Commons,  to  bring  to  justice,  through 
the  process  of  impeachment,  offenders  who  were  not  of  the  peerage. 
Nowadays  these  powers  are  of  no  practical  consequence. 

The  position  of  the  Lords  as  an  appellate  tribunal,  however,  is  still 
a  fundamental  fact  in  the  judicial  system.  Starting  with  control,  by 
way  of  appeal,  over  the  courts  of  common  law  in  England,  the  chamber 
acquired  in  time  a  similar  control  over  the  English  courts  of  chancery, 
and  eventually  over  the  courts  of  both  Scotland  and  Ireland.  Its 
jurisdiction  has  stopped  short  only  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  of 
the  courts  of  the  outlying  portions  of  the  Empire,  appeals  from  which 
are  heard  in  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council.  By  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  Act  of  1873,  whereby  the  higher  tribunals 
of  the  realm  were  remodelled,  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords 
was  abolished  outright;  but  in  1876,  before  the  measure  had  been  put 
in  operation  the  plan  was  modified  and  there  was  passed  the  Appellate 
Jurisdiction  Act  whereby  the  appellate  functions  of  the  Lords  were 
restored  and  provision  was  made  for  the  creation  at  first  of  two,  later 
of  three,  and  eventually  of  four,  salaried  life  peers,  to  be  selected  from 
men  of  eminence  in  the  law,  and  to  be  known  as  Lords  of  Appeal  in 
Ordinary.  In  so  far  as  it  is  controlled  by  statute  at  all,  the  appellate 
jurisdiction  of  the  chamber  is  regulated  to-day  by  this  measure.  Nom- 
inally, judicial  business  is  transacted  by  the  House  as  a  whole,  and 
every  member  has  a  right  not  only  to  be  present  but  to  participate 
in  the  rendering  of  decisions.  Actually,  such  business  is  transacted  by  a 
little  group  of  law  lords  (the  attendance  of  but  three  being  necessary) 
under  the  presidency  of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  and  the  unwritten  rule 
which  prohibits  the  presence  at  judicial  sessions  of  any  persons  save 
the  law  lords  is  quite  as  strictly  observed  as  is  any  one  of  a  score  of 
other  important  conventions  of  the  constitution.1  Under  the  act  of 
1876  it  is  within  the  competence  of  the  law  lords  to  sit  and  to  pro- 
nounce judgments  in  the  name  of  the  House  at  any  time,  regardless  of 
whether  Parliament  is  in  session.2  A  sitting  of  the  Court  is,  technically, 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  465. 

2  When  Parliament  is  in  session  the  sittings  of  the  law  lords  are  held,  as  a  rule, 
prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  regular  sitting  at  4.30  P.  M. 


132  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

a  sitting  of  the  Lords,  and  all  actions  taken  are  entered  in  the  Journal 
of  the  House  as  a  part  of  its  proceedings1. 

138.  Control  of  Legislation  and  Finance. — The  principal  and  alto- 
gether most  indispensable  ends  which  Parliament  to-day  subserves 
are  those  of  legislatiorTand  of  financial  control.   Many  of  the  measures, 
important  and  unimportant,  under  which  the  affairs  of  the  realm  are 
regulated  are  but  temporary  and  require  annual  re-enactment,  and 
the  volume  of  fresh  legislation  which  is  unceasingly  demanded  is  all 
but  limitless.    Similarly,  to  employ  the  words  of  Anson,  the  revenues 
which  accrue  to  the  crown  and  can  be  dealt  with  independently  of 
Parliament  would  hardly  carry  on  the  business  of  government  for  a 
day,2  and  not  only  does  Parliament  (in  effect,  the  House  of  Commons) 
by  its  appropriation  acts  make  possible  the  legal  expenditure  of  vir- 
tually all  public  moneys;  it  provides,  by  its  measures  of  taxation,  the 
funds  from  which  appropriations  are  made. 

VI.  GENERAL  ASPECTS  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE 

By  reason  of  the  supreme  importance  which  attaches  to  the  legisla- 
tive and  fiscal  activities  of  the  two  chambers  it  is  necessary  that  atten- 
tion be  directed  at  this  point  to  the  character  of  the  procedure  which 
these  activities  involve.  For  the  purpose  in  hand  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  speak  of  only  the  more  important  principles  of  procedure  in  relation 
to  the  three  fundamental  phases  of  legislative  work:  (i)  the  enactment 
of  non-financial  public  bills,  (2)  the  adoption  of  money  bills,  and  (3) 
the  passage  of  private  bills.  And  within  at  least  the  first  two  of  these 
domains  the  preponderance  of  the  Commons  is  such  that  the  procedure 
of  that  chamber  alone  need  be  described.  The  procedure  of  the  two 
chambers  upon  bills  is  substantially  the  same,  although,  as  is  illus- 
trated by  the  fact  that  amendments  to  bills  may  be  introduced  in  the 
Lords  at  any  stage  but  in  the  Commons  at  only  stipulated  stages, 
the  methods  of  conducting  business  in  the  upper  house  are  more 
elastic  than  those  prevailing  in  the  lower. 

139.  Fundamental    Principles. — The    legislative    omnipotence    of 
Parliament  has  been  emphasized  sufficiently.3    Any  sort  of  measure 
upon  any  conceivable  subject  may  be  introduced  and,  if  a  sufficient 

1  The  judicial  functions  of  Parliament  are  described  at  some  length  in  Anson, 
Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  Chap.  9.    The  principal  work  on  the  sub- 
ject is  C.  H.  Mcllwain,  The  High  Court  of  Parliament  and  its  Supremacy  (New 
Haven,  1910).    On  the  House  of  Lords  as  a  court  see  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of 
Parliament,  300-309;  A.  T.  Carter,  History  of  English  Legal  Institutions  (London, 
1902),  96-109;  and  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  History  of  English  Law,  I.,  170-193. 

2  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  52. 

3  See  p.  45. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     133 

number  of  the  members  are  so  minded,  enacted  into  law.  No  measure 
may  become  law  until  it  has  been  submitted  for  the  consideration  of 
both  houses,  but  under  the  terms  of  the  Parliament  Act  of  1911  it 
has  been  rendered  easy  for  money  bills,  and  not  impossible  for  bills  of 
other  sorts,  to  be  made  law  without  the  assent  of  the  House  of  Lords. 
In  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  a  measure  is  introduced  in  one  house, 
put  through  three  readings,  sent  to  the  other  house,  put  there  through 
the  same  routine,  deposited  with  the  House  of  Lords  to  await  the  royal 
assent,1  and,  after  having  been  assented  to  as  a  matter  of  course,  pro- 
claimed as  law.  Bills,  as  a  rule,  may  be  introduced  in  either  house,  by 
the  Government  or  by  a  private  member.  It  is  important  to  observe, 
however,  in  the  first  place,  that  certain  classes  of  measures  must 
originate  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  houses,  e.  g.,  money  bills  in  the 
Commons  and  bills  of  attainder  and  other  judicial  bills  in  the  Lords, 
and,  in  the  second  place,  that  with  the  growth  of  the  leadership  of  the 
Government  in  legislation  the  importance,  if  not  the  number,  of 
privately  introduced  bills  has  tended  steadily  to  be  decreased,  and 
likewise  the  chances  of  their  enactment. 

140.  Public  Bills :  First  and  Second  Readings. — The  steps  through 
which  a  public  bill,  whether  introduced  by  the  Government  or  by  a 
private  member,  must  pass  in  the  Commons  are  still  numerous,  but 
by  the  reduction  of  some  of  them  to  sheer  formalities  which  involve 
neither  debate  nor  vote  the  actual  legislative  process  has  been  made 
much  more  expeditious  than  once  it  was.  The  necessary  stages  in  the 
enactment  of  a  bill  in  either  house  are,  as  a  rule,  five:  first  reading, 
second  reading,  consideration  by  committee,  report  from  committee, 
and  thircfreading.  Formerly  the  introduction  of  a  measure  involved 
almost  invariably  a  speech  explaining  at  length  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
posal, followed  by  a  debate  and  a  vote,  sometimes  consuming,  in  all, 
several  sittings.  Nowadays  only  very  important  Government  bills 
are  introduced  in  this  manner.  In  the  case  of  all  other  bills  the  first 
reading  has  become  a  mere  formality,  involving  nothing  more  than  a 
motion  on  the  part  of  a  member,  official  or  private,  for  permission  to 
bring  in  a  measure  and  the  giving  of  leave  by  the  House,  almost  in- 
variably without  discussion.  Upon  all  measures  save  the  most  im- 
portant Government  projects,  opportunity  for  debate  is  first  afforded 
at  the  second  reading,  although  the  discussion  at  this  stage  must 
relate  to  general  principles  rather  than  to  details.  By  the  adoption  of 
a  motion  that  the  bill  be  read  a  second  time  "  this  day  six  months  " 
(or  at  some  other  date  falling  beyond  the  anticipated  limits  of  the 
session)  a  measure  may  at  this  point  be  killed. 

1  Except  that  money  bills  remain  in  the  custody  of  the  Commons. 


134  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

141.  Public  Bills:  Later  Stages. — A  bill  which  survives  the  second 
reading  is  "committed."  Prior  to  1907  it  would  go  normally  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  Nowadays  it  goes  there  if  it  is  a  money  bill 
or  a  bill  for  confirming  a  provisional  order,1  or  if,  on  other  grounds,  the 
House  so  directs;  otherwise  it  goes  to  one  of  the  four  standing  com- 
mittees, assignment  being  made  by  the  Speaker.  This  is  the  stage  at 
which  the  provisions  of  the  measure  are  considered  in  detail  and 
amendments  are  introduced.  After  the  second  reading,  however,  a 
bill  may  be  referred  to  a  select  committee,  and  in  the  event  that  this 
is  done  a  step  is  added  to  the  process,  for  after  being  returned  by  the 
select  committee  the  measure  goes  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
or  to  one  of  the  standing  committees.  Eventually  the  bill  is  reported 
back  to  the  House.  If  reported  by  a  standing  committee  or,  in 
amended  form  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  is  considered  by  the 
House  afresh  and  in  some  detail;  otherwise,  the  "report  stage"  is 
omitted.  Finally  comes  the  third  reading,  the  question  now  being 
whether  the  House  approves  the  measure  as  a  whole.  At  this  stage 
any  amendment  beyond  verbal  changes  necessitates  recommitment. 
The  carrying  of  a  measure  through  these  successive  stages  is  spread 
over,  as  a  rule,  several  days,  and  sometimes  several  weeks,  but  it 
is  not  impossible  that  the  entire  process  be  completed  during  the 
period  of  a  sitting.  Having  been  adopted  by  the  originating  house,  a 
bill  is  taken  by  a  clerk  to  the  other  house,  there  to  be  subjected  to  sub- 
stantially the  same  procedure.  If  amendments  are  introduced,  it  is 
sent  back  in  order  that  the  suggested  changes  may  be  considered  by 
the  first  house.  If  they  are  agreed  to,  the  measure  is  sent  up  for  the 
royal  approval.  If  they  are  rejected  and  an  agreement  between  the 
two  houses  cannot  be  reached,  the  measure  falls.2 

1  See  p.  138. 

2  The  legislative  process  is  summed  up  aptly  by  Lowell  as  follows:  "Leaving  out 
of  account  the  first  reading,  which  rarely  involves  a  real  debate,  the  ordinary  course 
of  a  public  bill  through  the  House  of  Commons  gives,  therefore,  an  opportunity 
for  two  debates  upon  its  general  merits,  and  between  them  two  discussions  of  its 
details,  or  one  debate  upon  the  details  if  that  one  results  in  no  changes,  or  if  the 
bill  has  been  referred  to  a  standing  committee.    When  the  House  desires  to  collect 
evidence  it  does  so  after  approving  of  the  general  principle,  and  before  taking  up 
the  details.    Stated  in  this  way  the  whole  matter  is  plain  and  rational  enough.    It 
is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  many  striking  examples  of  adaptation  in  the  English  political 
system.    A  collection  of  rules  that  appear  cumbrous  and  antiquated,  and  that  even 
now  are  well-nigh  incomprehensible  when  described  in  all  their  involved  techni- 
cality, have  been  pruned  away  until  they  furnish  a  procedure  almost  as  simple, 
direct,  and  appropriate  as  any  one  could  devise."     Government  of  England,  I., 
277-278.     The  procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  public  bills  is  described  in 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chaps.  13,  17,  19;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     135 

142.  Money  Bills:  Appropriation  and  Finance  Acts. — The  pro- 
cedure followed  in  the  handling  of  money  bills  differs  materially  from 
that  which  has  been  described.  Underlying  it  are  two  fundamental 
principles,  incorporated  in  the  standing  orders  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons during  the  first  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century.  One  of  them 
prescribes  that  no  petition  or  motion  for  the  granting  of  money  shall 
be  proceeded  upon  save  hi  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  other  for- 
bids the  receiving  of  any  petition,  or  the  proceeding  upon  any  motion, 
for  a  charge  upon  the  public  revenue  unless  recommended  from  the 
crown.  Although  these  principles  apply  technically  only  to  appro- 
priations, they  have  long  been  observed  with  equal  fidelity  in  respect 
to  the  raising  of  revenue.  All  specific  measures  for  the  expending  of 
money  and  all  proposals  for  the  imposing  of  fresh  taxation  or  the  in- 
crease of  existing  taxation  must  emanate  from  the  crown,  i.  e.,  in 
practice  from  the  cabinet.  A  private  member  may  go  no  further  in 
this  direction  than  to  introduce  resolutions  of  a  wholly  general  char- 
acter favoring  some  particular  kind  of  expenditure,  except  that  it  is 
within  his  right  to  move  to  repeal  or  to  reduce  taxes  which  the  Govern- 
ment has  not  proposed  to  modify. 

Two  great  fiscal  measures  are  introduced  and  carried  through  an- 
nually: the  Appropriation  Act,  in  which  are  brought  together  all  the 
grants  for  the  public  services  for  the  year,  and  the  Finance_Act  in 
which  are  comprised  all  regulations"  Felating  to  the  revenue  and  the 
national  debt.  Before  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year  (March  31)  the  minis- 
try submits  to  the  Commons  a  body  of  estimates  for  the  "supply 
services,"  drawn  up  originally  by  the  government  departments, 
scrutinized  by  the  Treasury,  and  approved  by  the  cabinet.  Early  in 
the  session  the  House  resolves  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
Supply,  by  which  resolutions  of  supply  are  discussed,  adopted,  and 
reported.  These  resolutions  are  embodied  in  bills  which,  for  purposes 
of  convenience,  are  passed  at  intervals  during  the  session.  But  at 
the  close  all  of  them  are  consolidated  in  one  grand  Appropriation  Act.1 
Upwards  of  half  of  the  public  expenditures,  it  is  to  be  observed,  e.  g., 
the  Civil  List,  the  salaries  of  judges,  pensions,  and  interest  on  the 

the  Constitution,  I.,  240-267;  Low,  Governance  of  England,  Chap.  4;  Moran, 
English  Government,  Chap.  14;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap,  n; 
Todd,  Parliamentary  Government,  II.,  138-163;  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  3;  Red- 
lich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  III.,  85-112;  and  May,  Treatise  on  the 
Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chap.  18.  See  also 
G.  Walpole,  House  of  Commons  Procedure,  with  Notes  on  American  Practice  (Lon- 
don, 1902),  and  C.  P.  Ilbert,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms  (Oxford,  1901),  77-121. 
1  Before  the  lapse  of  a  twelvemonth  unforeseen  contingencies  require  invariably 
the  voting  of  "supplementary  grants." 


136  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

national  debt,  are  provided  for  by  permanent  acts  imposing  charges 
upon  the  Consolidated  Fund  and  do  not  come  annually  under  parlia- 
mentary review. 

143.  The  Budget. — As  soon  as  practicable  after  the  close  of  the  fiscal 
year  the  House,  resolved  for  the  purpose  into  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  receives  from  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  his  Budget,  or 
annual  statement  of  accounts.  The  statement  comprises  regularly 
three  parts:  a  review  of  revenue  and  expenditure  during  the  year  just 
closed,  a  provisional  balance-sheet  for  the  year  to  come,  and  a  series 
of  proposals  for  the  remission,  modification,  or  fresh  imposition  of  taxes. 
Revenues,  as  expenditures,  are  in  large  part  "permanent,"  yet  a  very 
considerable  proportion  are  provided  for  through  the  medium  of  yearly 
votes.  In  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  the  House  considers  the 
Chancellor's  proposals,  and  after  they  have  been  reported  back  and 
embodied  in  a  bill  they  are  carried  with  the  assent  of  the  crown,  though 
no  longer  necessarily  of  the  Lords,  into  law.  Prior  to  1861  it  was  cus- 
tomary to  include  in  the  fiscal  resolutions  and  in  the  bill  in  which  they 
were  embodied  only  the  annual  and  temporary  taxes,  but  in  consequence 
of  the  Lords'  rejection,  in  1860,  of  a  separate  finance  bill  repealing  the 
duties  on  paper  it  was  made  the  practice  to  incorporate  in  a  single  bill — 
the  so-called  Finance  Bill — provision  for  all  taxes,  whether  temporary 
or  permanent.  In  practice  the  House  of  Commons  rarely  refuses  to 
approve  the  financial  measures  recommended  by  the  Government.  The 
chamber  has  no  power  to  propose  either  expenditure  or  taxation,  and 
the  right  which  it  possesses  to  refuse  or  to  reduce  the  levies  and  the 
appropriations  asked  for  is  seldom  used.  "Financially,"  says  Lowell, 
"its  work  is  rather  supervision  than  direction;  and  its  real  usefulness 
consists  in  securing  publicity  and  criticism  rather  than  in  controlling  ex- 
penditure." 1  The  theory  underlying  fiscal  procedure  has  been  summed 
up  lucidly  as  follows:  "The  Crown  demands  money,  the  Commons  grant 
it,  and  the  Lords  assent  to  the  grant;  2  but  the  Commons  do  not  vote 
money  unless  it  be  required  by  the  Crown;  nor  impose  or  augment  taxes 
unless  they  be  necessary  for  meeting  the  supplies  which  they  have  voted 
or  are  about  to  vote,  and  for  supplying  general  deficiencies  in  the  rev- 
enue. The  Crown  has  no  concern  in  the  nature  or  distribution  of  the 
taxes;  but  the  foundation  of  all  Parliamentary  taxation  is  its  neces- 
sity for  the  public  service  as  declared  by  the  Crown  through  its  con- 
stitutional advisers."  3 

1  Government  of  England,  I.,  288. 

2  Since  the  enactment  of  the  Parliament  Bill  of  1911,  as  has  been  observed,  the 
assent  of  the  Lords  is  not  necessary.    See  p.  112. 

3  The  procedure  involved  in  the  handling  of  money  bills  is  described  in  Lowell, 
Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  14;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution, 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     137 

144.  Private  Bills:  Nature  and  Procedure. — In  the  matter  of  pro- 
cedure there  is  no  distinction  between  a  Government  bill  and  a  private 
member's  bill.  Both  are  public  bills.  But  a  private  bill  is  handled  in 
a  manner  largely  peculiar  to  itself.  A  public  bill  is  one  which  affects 
the  general  interests  of  the  state,  and  which  has  for  its  object  presumably 
the  promotion  of  the  common  good.  A  private  bill  is  one  which  has  in 
view  the  interest  of  some  particular  locality,  person,  or  collection  of 
persons.  The  commonest  object  of  private  bills  is  to  enable  private 
individuals  to  enter  into  combination  to  undertake  works  of  public 
utility — the  building  of  railways  or  tramways,  the  construction  of  har- 
bors or  piers,  the  draining  of  swamps,  the  supplying  of  water,  gas,  or 
electricity,  and  the  embarking  upon  a  wide  variety  of  other  enterprises 
which  in  the  United  States  would  be  regulated  chiefly  by  state  legisla- 
tures and  city  councils — at  their  own  risk  and,  in  part  at  least,  for  their 
own  profit.  All  private  bills  originate  in  petitions,  which  must  be  sub- 
mitted in  advance  of  the  opening  of  the  session  during  which  they  are 
to  be  considered.  Their  presentation  and  the  various  stages  of  their 
progress  are  governed  by  very  detailed  and  stringent  regulations,  and 
fees  are  required  from  both  promoters  and  opponents,  so  that  the  enact- 
ment of  a  private  bill  of  importance  becomes  for  the  parties  directly 
concerned  an  expensive  process,  and  for  the  Exchequer  a  source  of  no 
inconsiderable  amount  of  revenue. 

After  having  been  scrutinized  and  approved  by  parliamentary  officials 
known  as  Examiners  of  Petitions  for  Private  Bills,  a  private  bill  is 
introduced  in  one  of  the  two  houses.1  Its  introduction  is  equivalent  to 
its  first  reading.  At  its  second  reading  debate  may  take  place  upon  the 
principle  of  the  measure,  after  which  the  bill,  if  opposed,  is  referred 
to  a  Private  Bill  Committee  consisting  of  four  members  and  a  dis- 
interested referee.  If  the  bill  be  not  opposed,  i.  e.,  if  no  adverse  petition 
has  been  filed  by  property  owners,  corporations,  or  other  interests,  the 
committee  of  reference,  under  a  standing  order  of  1903,  consists  of  the 
Chairman  and  Deputy  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  two  other  mem- 
I.,  268-281;  Walpole,  Electorate  and  Legislature,  Chap.  7;  Todd,  Parliamentary 
Government,  II.,  186-271;  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  4;  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  III.,  113-174;  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law,  Privileges,  Proceed- 
ings, and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chap.  21.  See  also  E.  Porritt,  Amendments  in  the 
House  of  Commons  Procedure  since  1881,  in  American  Political  Science  Review, 
Nov.,  1908.  Among  numerous  works  on  taxation  in  England  the  standard  authority 
is  S.  Dowell,  History  of  Taxation  and  Taxes  in  England  from  the  Earliest  Times  to 
the  Year  1885,  4  vols.  (2d  ed.,  London,  1888). 

1  To  facilitate  their  consideration,  such  measures  are  distributed  approximately 
equally  between  the  two  houses.  This  is  done  through  conference  of  the  Chairmen 
of  Committees  of  the  two  houses,  or  their  counsel,  prior  to  the  assembling  of  Par- 
liament. 


138  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

bers  of  the  House,  appointed  by  the  Committee  of  Selection,  and  the 
Counsel  to  Mr.  Speaker.  The  committee  stage  of  a  contested  bill  as- 
sumes an  essentially  judicial  aspect.  Promoters  and  opponents  are  rep- 
resented by  counsel,  witnesses  are  examined,  and  expert  testimony  is 
taken.  After  being  reported  by  committee,  the  measure  goes  its  way 
under  the  same  regulations  as  those  controlling  the  progress  of  public 
bills. 

145.  Provisional  Orders. — Two  things  are,  however,  to  be  noted. 
The  first  one  is  that  while  in  theory  the  distinction  between  a  public  and 
a  private  bill  is  clear,  in  point  of  fact  there  is  no  little  difficulty  in  draw- 
ing a  line  of  demarcation,  and  the  result  has  been  the  recognition  of  an 
indefinite  class  of  "hybrid"  bills,  partly  public  and  partly  private  in 
content  and  handled  under  some  circumstances  as  the  one  and  under 
others  as  the  other,  or  even  under  a  procedure  combining  features  of 
both.  The  second  fact  to  be  observed  is  that,  in  part  to  reduce  expense 
and  in  part  to  procure  the  good-will  of  the  executive  department  con- 
cerned, it  has  become  common  for  the  promoters  of  enterprises  re- 
quiring parliamentary  sanction  to  make  use  of  the  device  known  as  pro- 
visional orders.  A  provisional  order  is  an  order  issued,  after  minute 
investigation,  by  a  government  department  authorizing  provisionally 
the  undertaking  of  a  project  in  behalf  of  which  application  has  been 
made.  It  requires  eventually  the  sanction  of  Parliament,  but  such 
orders  are  laid  before  the  houses  in  groups  by  the  several  departments 
and  their  ratification  is  virtually  assured  in  advance.  It  is  pointed  out 
by  Lowell  that  during  the  years  1898-1901  not  one-tenth  of  the  provi- 
sional orders  laid  before  Parliament  were  opposed,  and  but  one  failed 
of  adoption.1 

VII.  THE  CONDUCT  OF  BUSINESS  IN  THE  TWO  HOUSES 

"How  can  I  learn  the  rules  of  the  Commons?  "  was  a  question  once 
put  by  an  Irish  member  to  Mr.  Parnell.  "By  breaking  them,"  was  the 
philosophic  reply.  Representing,  as  it  does,  an  accumulation  through 
centuries  of  deliberately  adopted  regulations,  interwoven  and  overlaid 
with  unwritten  custom,  the  code  of  procedure  by  which  the  conduct 

1  Government  of  England,  I.,  385.  On  private  bill  legislation  see  Lowell,  I.,  Chap. 
20;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  291-300;  May,  Treatise  on  the 
Law,  Privileges,  Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps.  24-29;  Courtney, 
Working  Constitution  of  the  United  Kingdom,  Chap.  18;  MacDonaugh,  The  Book 
of  Parliament,  398-420.  The  standard  treatise  upon  the  subject  is  F.  Clifford, 
History  of  Private  Bill  Legislation,  2  vols.  (London,  1885-1887).  A  recent  book  of 
value  is  F.  H.  Spencer,  Municipal  Origins;  an  Account  of  English  Private  Bill 
Legislation  relating  to  Local  Government,  1740-1835,  with  a  Chapter  on  Private 
Bill  Procedure  (London,  1911). 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     139 

of  business  in  the  House  of  Commons  is  governed  is  indeed  intricate 
and  forbidding.  Lord  Palmerston  admitted  that  he  never  fully  mas- 
tered it,  and  Gladstone  was  not  infrequently  an  inadvertent  offender 
against  the  "rules  of  the  House."  Prior  to  the  nineteenth  century  the 
rules  were  devised,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Anson,  with  two  objects  in  view: 
to  protect  the  House  from  hasty  and  ill-considered  action  pressed  for- 
ward by  the  king's  ministers,  and  to  secure  fair  play  between  the  parties 
in  the  chamber  and  a  hearing  for  all.  It  was  not  until  18 1 1  that  business 
of  the  Government  was  permitted  to  obtain  recognized  precedence  on 
certain  days;  but  the  history  of  the  procedure  of  the  Commons  since 
that  date  is  a  record  of  (i)  the  general  reduction  of  the  time  during 
which  private  members  may  indulge  in  the  discussion  of  subjects 
or  measures  lying  outside  the  Government's  legislative  programme, 
(2)  increasing  limitation  of  the  opportunity  for  raising  general  ques- 
tions at  the  various  stages  of  Government  business,  and  (3)  the 
cutting  down  of  the  time  allowed  for  discussing  at  all  the  projects  to 
which  the  Government  asks  the  chambers'  assent.1 

146.  Rules. — The  rules  governing  debate  and  decorum  are  not  only 
elaborate  but,  in  some  instances,  of  great  antiquity.    In  so  far  as  they 
have  been  reduced  to  writing  they  may  be  said  to  comprise  (i)  "stand- 
ing orders  "  of  a  permanent  character,  (2)  "sessional orders,"  operative 
during  a  session  only,  and    (3)  "general  orders,"    indeterminate  in 
respect  to  period  of  application.    In  the  course  of  debate  all  remarks 
are  addressed  to  the  Speaker  and  in  the  event  that  the  floor  is  desired 
by  more  than  one  member  it  rests  with  the  Speaker  to  designate,  with 
scrupulous  impartiality,  who  shall  have  it.    When  a  "division"  is  in 
progress  and  the  doors  are  closed  members  speak  seated  and  covered, 
but  at  all  other  times  they  speak  standing  and  uncovered.    A  speech 
may  not  be  read  from  manuscript,  and  it  is  within  the  competence 
of  the  Speaker  not  only  to  warn  a  member  against  irrelevance  or  repeti- 
tion but  to  compel  him  to  terminate  his  remarks.2    A  member  whose 
conduct  is  reprehensible  may  be  ordered  to  withdraw  and,  upon  vote  of 
the  House,  may  be  suspended  from  service.    Except  in  committee,  a 
member  may  not  speak  twice  upon  the  same  question,  although  he 
may  be  allowed  the  floor  a  second  time  to  explain  a  portion  of  his  speech 
which  has  been  misunderstood.    Undue  obstruction  is  not  tolerated, 
and  the  Speaker  may  decline  to  put  a  motion  which  he  considers  dilatory. 

147.  Closure  and  the  Guillotine. — For  the  further  limitation  of  debate 
two  important  and  drastic  devices  are  at  all  times  available.    One  is 
ordinary  closure  and  the  other  is  "the  guillotine."     Closure  dates 

1  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  I.,  253. 

»0n  parliamentary  oratory  see  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Parliaments,  203-224. 


140  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

originally  from  1881.  It  was  introduced  in  the  standing  orders  of  the 
House  in  1882,  and  it  assumed  its  present  form  in  iSSS.1  It  sprang  from 
the  efforts  of  the  House  to  curb  the  intolerably  obstructionist  tactics 
employed  a  generation  ago  by  the  Irish  Nationalists,  but  by  reason  of 
the  increasing  mass  of  business  to  be  disposed  of  and  the  tendency  of 
large  deliberative  bodies  to  waste  time,  it  has  been  found  too  useful 
to  be  given  up.  "After  a  question  has  been  proposed,"  reads  Standing 
Order  26,  "a  member  rising  in  his  place  may  claim  to  move  'that  the 
Question  be  now  put,'  and  unless  it  shall  appear  to  the  Chair  that  such 
motion  is  an  abuse  of  the  Rules  of  the  House,  or  an  infringement  of 
the  rights  of  the  minority,  the  Question  '  that  the  Question  be  now  put ' 
shall  be  put  forthwith  and  decided  without  amendment  or  debate." 
Discussion  may  thus  be  cut  off  instantly  and  a  vote  precipitated. 
Closure  is  inoperative,  however,  unless  the  number  of  members  voting 
in  the  majority  for  its  adoption  is  at  least  one  hundred,  or,  in  a  standing 
committee,  twenty. 

A  more  generally  effective  device  by  which  discussion  is  limited  and 
the  transaction  of  business  is  facilitated  is  that  known  as  "closure  by 
compartments,"  or  "the  guillotine."  When  this  is  employed  the  House 
in  advance  of  the  consideration  of  a  bill  agrees  upon  an  allotment  of 
time  to  the  various  parts  or  stages  of  the  measure,  and  at  the  expiration 
of  each  period  debate,  whether  concluded  or  not,  is  closed,  a  vote  is 
taken,  and  a  majority  adopts  that  portion  of  the  bill  upon  which  the 
guillotine  has  fallen.  In  recent  years  this  device  has  been  employed 
almost  invariably  when  an  important  Government  bill  is  reserved  for 
consideration  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Its  advantage  is  the  saving 
of  time  and  the  ensuring  that  by  a  given  date  final  action  upon  a  measure 
shall  have  been  taken.  Prior  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century 
liberty  of  discussion  in  the  Commons  was  all  but  unrestrained,  save  by 
what  an  able  authority  on  English  parliamentary  practice  has  termed 
"  the  self-imposed  parliamentary  discipline  of  the  parties."1  The  enor- 
mous change  which  has  come  about  is  attributable  to  two  principal 
causes,  congestion  of  business  and  the  rise  of  obstructionism.  The  effect 
has  been,  among  other  things,  to  accentuate  party  differences  and  to 
involve  occasional  disregard  of  the  rights  of  minorities.2 

148.  Votes  and  Divisions. — When  debate  upon  the  whole  or  a  portion 
of  a  measure  is  terminated  there  takes  place  a  vote,  which  may  or  may 

1  The  name  was  first  employed  in  1887. 

2  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the  House  of  Commons,  I.,  133-212;  Graham,  The  Mother 
of  Parliaments,  158-172.    An  excellent  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  guillotine  is 
afforded  by  the  history  of  the  passage  of  the  National  Insurance  Bill  of  1911.    See 
Annual  Register  (1911),  232-236. 


PARLIAMENT:  ORGANIZATION,  FUNCTIONS,  PROCEDURE     141 

not  involve,  technically,  a  "division."  The  Speaker  or  Chairman 
states  the  question  to  be  voted  upon  and  calls  for  the  ayes  and  noes. 
He  announces  the  apparent  result  and,  if  his  decision  is  not  challenged, 
the  vote  is  so  recorded.  If,  however,  any  member  objects,  strangers 
are  asked  to  withdraw  (save  from  the  places  reserved  for  them), 
electric  bells  are  rung  throughout  the  building,  the  two-minute  sand- 
glass is  turned,  and  at  the  expiration  of  the  time  the  doors  are  locked. 
The  question  is  then  repeated  and  another  oral  vote  is  taken.  If  there 
is  still  lack  of  acquiescence  in  the  announced  result,  the  Speaker  orders 
a  division.  The  ayes  pass  into  the  lobby  at  the  Speaker's  right  and  the 
noes  into  that  at  his  left,  and  all  are  counted  by  four  tellers  designated 
by  the  Speaker,  two  from  each  side,  as  the  members  return  to  their 
places  in  the  chamber.  This  method  of  taking  a  division  has  under- 
gone but  little  change  since  1836.  Under  a  standing  order  of  1888  the 
Speaker  is  empowered,  in  the  event  that  he  considers  a  demand  for  a 
division  dilatory  or  irresponsible,  to  call  upon  the  ayes  and  noes  to 
rise  in  their  places  and  be  counted;  but  there  is  seldom  occasion  for 
resort  to  this  variation  from  the  established  practice.  The  device 
of  "pairing  "  is  not  unknown,  and  when  the  question  is  one  of  political 
moment  the  fact  is  made  obvious  by  the  activity  of  the  party  "whips  " 
in  behalf  of  the  interests  which  they  represent.1 

149.  Procedure  in  the  Lords. — The  rules  of  procedure  of  the  House 
of  Lords  are  in  theory  simple,  and  in  practice  yet  more  so.  Nominally, 
all  measures  of  importance,  after  being  read  twice,  are  considered  in 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  referred  to  a  standing  committee  for  textual 
revision,  reported,  and  accorded  final  adoption  or  rejection.  In  practice 
the  process  is  likely  to  be  abbreviated.  Few  bills,  for  example,  are 
actually  referred  to  the  revision  committee.  For  the  examination  of 
such  measures  as  seem  to  require  it  committees  are  constituted  for  the 
session,  and  others  are  created  from  time  to  time  as  need  of  them  appears, 
but  the  comparative  leisure  of  the  chamber  permits  debate  within  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  upon  any  measure  which  the  members  really 
care  to  discuss.  Willful  obstruction  is  all  but  unknown,  so  that  there  has 
never  been  occasion  for  the  adoption  of  any  form  of  closure.  Important 
questions  are  decided,  as  a  rule,  by  a  division.  When  the  question  is 
put  those  members  who  desire  to  register  an  affirmative  vote  repair 

1  On  the  conduct  of  business  in  the  Commons  see  Lowell,  Government  of  Eng- 
land, L,  Chaps.  15-16;  Moran,  English  Government,  Chap.  15;  Walpole,  Electorate 
and  Legislature,  Chap.  8;  Ilbert,  Parliament,  Chap.  5;  Redlich,  Procedure  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  II.,  215-264,  III.,  1-41;  May,  Treatise  on  the  Law,  Privileges, 
Proceedings,  and  Usage  of  Parliament,  Chaps,  8-12;  Medley,  Manual  of  English 
Constitutional  History,  231-284;  Graham,  The  Mother  of  Parliaments,  225-258; 
and  MacDonaugh,  The  Book  of  Parliament,  217-247. 


142  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

to  the  lobby  at  the  right  of  the  woolsack,  those  who  are  opposed  to 
the  proposal  take  their  places  in  the  corresponding  lobby  at  the  left, 
and  both  groups  are  counted  by  tellers  appointed  by  the  presiding 
officer.  A  member  may  abstain  from  voting  by  taking  his  station  on 
"the  steps  of  the  throne,"  technically  accounted  outside  the  chamber. 
Prior  to  1868  absent  members  were  allowed  to  vote  by  proxy,  but  this 
indefensible  privilege,  abolished  by  standing  order  in  the  year  men- 
tioned, is  likely  never  to  be  revived.1 

1  On  the  conduct  of  business  in  the  Lords  see  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the 
Constitution,  I.,  281-291. 


CHAPTER  VH 
POLITICAL  PARTIES 

I.  PARLIAMENTARISM  AND  THE  PARTY  SYSTEM 

160.  Government  by  Party. — Intimately  connected  with  the  parlia- 
mentary scheme  of  government  which  has  been  described  is  the  char- 
acteristic British  system  of  government  by  party.  Indeed,  not  merely 
is  there  between  the  two  an  intimate  connection;  they  are  but  different 
aspects  of  the  same  working  arrangement.  The  public  affairs  of  the 
kingdom  at  any  given  time,  as  has  appeared,  are  managed  by  the  body 
of  ministers,  acting  with  and  through  a  supporting  majority  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  These  ministers  belong  to  one  or  the  other  of 
the  two  great  political  parties,  with  only  occasional  and  incidental 
representation  of  minor  affiliated  political  groups.  Their  supporters 
in  the  Commons  are,  in  the  main,  their  fellow-partisans,  and  their 
tenure  of  power  is  dependent  upon  the  fortunes  of  their  party  in 
Parliament  and  throughout  the  country.  They  are  at  once  the  work- 
ing executive,  the  guiding  agency  in  legislation,  and  the  leaders  and 
spokesmen  of  this  party.  Confronting  them  constantly  is  the  Oppo- 
sition, consisting  of  influential  exponents  of  the  contrary  political  faith 
who,  in  turn,  lead  the  rank  and  file  of  their  party  organization;  and 
if  at  any  time  the  ministers  in  power  lose  their  supporting  majority 
in  the  Commons,  whether  through  adverse  results  of  a  national  elec- 
tion or  otherwise,  they  retire  and  the  Opposition  assumes  office.  The 
parliamentary  system  and  the  party  system  are  thus  inextricably 
related,  the  one  being,  indeed,  historically  the  product  of  the  other. 
It  was  principally  through  the  agency  of  party  spirit,  party  contest, 
and  party  unity  that  there  was  established  by  degrees  that  single  and 
collective  responsibility  of  ministers  which  lies  at  the  root  of  parlia- 
mentary government;  and,  but  for  the  coherence  and  stability  with 
which  political  activity  is  invested  by  party  organization,  the  opera- 
tion of  the  parliamentary  system  would  be  an  impossibility.  The 
law  of  the  British  constitution  does  not  demand  the  existence  of  parties; 
on  the  contrary,  it  affords  them  no  recognition  or  place.  The  con- 
ventions, however,  both  assume  and  require  them. 

143 


144  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

151.  Two-Party  Organization. — The  relationship  which  subsists  be- 
tween parliamentarism  and  party  government  is  to  be  accounted  for 
in  no  small  measure  by  the  fact  that  the  number  of  great  parties  in 
the  United  Kingdom  is  but  two.  Certain  continental  nations,  notably 
France  and  Italy,  possess  the  forms  of  parliamentary  government, 
adopted  within  times  comparatively  recent  and  taken  over  largely 
from  Great  Britain.  In  these  countries,  however,  the  multiplicity  of 
parties  effectually  prevents  the  operation  of  the  parliamentary  sys- 
tem in  the  fashion  in  which  that  system  operates  across  the  Chan- 
nel. Ministries  must  be  made  up  invariably  of  representatives  of  a 
number  of  essentially  independent  groups.  They  are  apt  to  be  in- 
harmonious, to  be  able  to  execute  but  indifferently  the  composite 
will  of  the  Government  coalition  in  the  popular  chamber,  and,  ac- 
cordingly, to  be  short-lived.  Despite  the  rise  in  recent  decades  of  the 
Irish  Nationalist  and  Labor  groups,  it  is  still  true  in  Great  Britain,  as 
it  has  been  since  political  parties  first  made  their  appearance  there, 
that  two  leading  party  affiliations  divide  between  themselves  the  al- 
legiance of  the  mass  of  the  nation.  The  defeat  of  one  means  the 
triumph  of  the  other,  and  either  alone  is  competent  normally  to  gov- 
ern independently  if  elevated  to  power.  This  means,  on  the  one 
hand,  a  much  more  thoroughgoing  predominance  of  the  governing 
party  than  can  be  acquired  by  a  single  party  in  France  or  Italy  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  unique  concentration  of  responsibility  and,  in 
turn,  an  increased  responsiveness  to  the  public  will.  The  leaders  of 
the  one  party  for  the  time  in  the  ascendancy  govern  the  nation,  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that,  being  the  leaders  of  this  party,  they  are  selected 
without  doubt  or  equivocation  to  fill  the  principal  offices  of  state.1 

1  For  a  fuller  exposition  of  the  relations  of  party  and  the  parliamentary  system 
see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  I.,  Chap.  24.  The  best  description  of  English 
parties  and  party  machinery  is  that  contained  in  Chaps.  24-37  of  President  Lowell's 
volumes.  The  growth  of  parties  and  of  party  organization  is  discussed  with  fullness 
and  with  admirable  temper  in  M.  Ostrogorski,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of 
Political  Parties,  trans,  by  F.  Clarke,  2  vols.  (London,  1902).  A  valuable  mono- 
graph is  A.  L.  Lowell,  The  Influence  of  Party  upon  Legislation  in  England  and 
America,  in  Annual  Report  of  American  Historical  Association  for  igoi  (Wash- 
ington, 1902),  L,  319-542.  An  informing  study  is  E.  Porritt,  The  Break-up  of  the 
English  Party  System,  in  Annals  of  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  V.,  No.  4  (Jan.,  1895),  and  an  incisive  criticism  is  H.  Belloc  and  H.  Chester- 
ton, The  Party  System  (London,  1911),  There  is  no  adequate  history  of  English 
political  parties  from  their  origins  to  the  present  day.  G.  W.  Cooke,  The  History 
of  Party  from  the  Rise  of  the  Whig  and  Tory  factions  in  the  Reign  of  Charles  II. 
to  the  Passing  of  the  Reform  Bill,  3  vols.  (London,  1836-1837)  covers  the  subject 
satisfactorily  to  the  end  of  the  last  unreformed  parliament.  Other  party  histories — 
as  T.  E.  Kebbel,  History  of  Toryism  (London,  1886);  C.  B.  R.  Kent,  The  English 
Radicals  (London,  1899);  W.  Harris,  History  of  the  Radical  Party  in  Parliament 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  145 


II.  PARTIES  IN  THE  LATER  EIGHTEENTH  AND  EARLIER 
NINETEENTH  CENTURIES 

162.  Whigs  and  Tories. — The  seventeenth-century  origins  of  politi- 
cal parties  in  England,  the  development  of  Whigs  and  Tories  following 
the  Revolution  of  1688-1689,  and  the  prolonged  Whig  supremacy  during 
the  reigns  of  George  I.  and  George  II.,  have  been  alluded  to  in  another 
place.1  During  the  eighteenth  century  the  parliamentary  system  was 
but  slowly  coming  into  its  own,  and  again  and  again  party  lines  all 
but  disappeared.  The  recurring  rivalry  of  Whig  and  Tory  elements, 
however,  brought  about  gradually  a  habitual  recognition  of  the  re- 
sponsibility of  ministers,  and  this  responsibility,  in  turn,  reacted  to 
accentuate  party  demarcation.  The  efforts  of  George  III.  to  revive 
the  royal  prerogative  had  the  effect  of  calling  into  existence  a  body 
of  new  Tories,  not  Jacobite,  but  Hanoverian,  who  supported  the  king 
in  his  purpose,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  driving  the  forces  of  opposition 
to  a  closer  union  and  more  constant  vigilance.  Throughout  the  century 
the  tone  of  party  politics  was  continuously  low.  Bribery  and  other 
forms  of  corruption  were  rife,  and  the  powers  of  government,  both 
national  and  local,  were  in  the  hands  regularly  of  an  aristocratic 
minority  which  ruled  in  its  own  interest.  The  high-water  mark  of 
intrigue  was  reached  in  1783  when  the  old  Tories,  led  by  Lord  North, 
allied  themselves  with  the  old  Whigs,  led  by  Charles  James  Fox,  to 
retain  power  and  to  curtail  the  influence  of  the  king.  The  coalition 
was  unsuccessful,  and  the  defeat  of  Fox's  India  Bill,  in  December,  1783, 
became  the  occasion  of  the  younger  Pitt's  elevation  to  the  premiership, 
followed  within  three  months  by  a  national  election  which  precipitated 
an  end  of  the  seventy  years  of  Whig  ascendancy. 

153.  The  Tory  Ascendancy,  1783-1830.— Throughout  the  ensuing 
forty-six  years,  or  until  1830,  the  new  Tory  party  continued  almost 
uninterruptedly  in  power,  although  it  is  to  be  observed  that  after  1790 
the  composition  and  character  of  this  party  underwent  important 
modification.  The  first  decade  of  the  period  covered  by  the  Pitt  min- 
istry (1784-1801)  was  a  time  of  incipient  but  active  propaganda  in 
behalf  of  constitutional,  financial,  and  social  reform,  and  the  govern- 
ment was  not  disinclined  to  favor  a  number  of  the  changes  which  were 

(London,  1885);  and  J.  B.  Daly,  The  Dawn  of  Radicalism  (London,  1892)— cover 
important  but  restricted  fields.  An  admirable  work  which  deals  with  party  organi- 
zation as  well  as  with  party  principles  is  R.  S.  Watson,  The  National  Liberal  Federa- 
tion from  its  Commencement  to  the  General  Election  of  1906  (London,  1907).  For 
further  party  histories  see  p.  160,  166. 
See  p.  39. 


146  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

projected.  The  outbreak  and  progress  of  the  Revolution  in  France, 
however,  completely  altered  the  situation.  The  great  landowners, 
who  constituted  the  dominating  element  in  the  Whig  party,  detested 
the  principles  of  the  Revolution  and  were  insistent  in  season  and  out 
upon  war  with  France.  They  secured  the  support  of  the  parliamen- 
tary classes  generally,  and  Pitt  and  his  colleagues  were  forced  to  sur- 
render to  the  apprehensions  and  demands  of  these  elements.  The 
war  was  declared  by  France,  but  it  was  provoked  mainly  by  the  hostile 
attitude  of  the  English  people  and  government.  At  home  all  reform 
propaganda  was  stamped  out,  and  Tories  and  Whigs  alike  throughout 
the  quarter-century  of  international  conflict  pointed  habitually  to 
the  abuses  by  which  the  upheaval  in  France  was  accompanied  as 
indicative  of  what  might  be  expected  in  England,  or  anywhere,  when 
once  the  way  was  thrown  open  for  unrestrained  innovation. 

The  Tories  were  in  power  during  most  of  the  war  period  and  in 
1815  their  position  was  seemingly  impregnable.  During  the  years 
covered  by  the  ministry  of  Lord  Liverpool  (1812-1827),  however,  their 
hold  was  gradually  relaxed.  They  sought  to  secure  for  themselves 
the  support  of  the  masses  and  talked  much  of  the  aristocratic  exclu- 
siveness  of  the  Whigs,  yet  they  made  it  their  first  concern  to  maintain 
absolutely  intact  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom  and  the  political 
and  social  order  by  which  it  was  buttressed.  As  long  as  England  was 
engaged  in  a  life  and  death  contest  with  Napoleon  the  staying  of  in- 
novation was  easy,  but  after  1815  the  task  became  one  of  rapidly  in- 
creasing difficulty.  In  the  reign  of  George  IV.  (1820-1830)  the  more 
progressive  of  the  Tory  leaders,  notably  Canning,  Huskisson,  and 
Peel,  recognized  that  the  demands  of  the  nation  would  have  to  be  met 
at  some  points,  and  a  number  of  liberalizing  measures  were  suffered 
to  be  carried  through  Parliament,  though  none  which  touched  directly 
the  most  serious  problems  of  the  day.  In  1830  the  resignation  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington  marked  the  end  of  the  pro- 
longed Tory  ascendancy,  and  with  a  ministry  presided  over  by  Earl 
Grey  the  Whigs  returned  to  power.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  brief 
intervals  they  and  their  successors,  the  Liberals,  held  office  thereafter 
until  I874.1 

1The  party  history  of  the  period  1700-1792  is  related  admirably  and  in  much 
detail  in  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  7  vols. 
(new  ed.,  New  York,  1903).  Beginning  with  1815,  the  best  work  on  English  political 
history  in  the  earlier  nineteenth  century  is  S.  Walpole,  History  of  England  from 
the  Conclusion  of  the  Great  War  in  1815,  6  vols.  (new  ed.,  London,  1902).  A  good 
general  account  is  contained  in  I.  S.  Leadam,  The  History  of  England  from  the 
Accession  of  Anne  to  the  Death  of  George  II.  (London,  1909),  and  W.  Hunt,  The 
History  of  England  from  the  Accession  of  George  III.  to  the  Close  of  Pitt's  First 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  147 


HI.  THE  SECOND  ERA  OF  WHIG  [LIBERAL]  ASCENDANCY,  1830-1874 

164.  The  Liberals  and  Reform. — The  political  history  of  this  second 
great  era  of  Whig  ascendancy  falls  into  some  four  or  five  stages.  The 
first,  extending  from  the  accession  of  the  Grey  ministry  in  1830  to  the 
parliamentary  elections  of  1841,  was  an  epoch  of  notable  reforms, 
undertaken  and  carried  through  mainly  by  the  Whigs,  with  the  co- 
operation of  various  radical  elements  and  of  discontented  Tories. 
This  was  the  period  of  the  first  Reform  Act  (1832),  the  emancipation  of 
slaves  in  the  British  colonies  (1833),  the  beginning  of  parliamentary 
appropriations  for  public  education  (1833),  the  Factory  Act  of  1833, 
the  New  Poor  Law  (1834),  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  (1835), 
and  a  number  of  other  measures  designed  to  meet  urgent  demands  of 
humanity  and  of  public  interest.  This  was  the  time,  furthermore,  at 
which  the  party  nomenclature  of  later  days  was  brought  into  use. 
The  name  Whig  was  superseded  altogether  by  that  of  Liberal,  while 
the  name  Tory,  though  not  wholly  discontinued  in  everyday  usage, 
was  replaced  largely  by  the  term  Conservative.1  The  Liberals  were 
in  these  years  peculiarly  the  party  of  reform,  but  it  must  not  be  in- 
ferred that  the  Conservatives  resisted  all  change  or  withheld  support 
from  all  measures  of  amelioration. 

156.  From  Peel  to  Palmerston. — The  second  stage  of  the  period 
under  survey  was  that  comprised  by  the  Conservative  ministry  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel,  1841-1846,  established  in  consequence  of  the  decisive 
defeat  of  the  Whigs  at  the  elections  of  1841.  The  memorable  achieve- 
ment of  the  Peel  government  was  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws  and  the 
casting  off  of  substantially  the  whole  of  the  protective  system;  but 
the  tariff  policy  of  the  premier  divided  the  Conservative  party  into 
the  protectionists  or  old  Conservatives,  led  by  Disraeli  and  Lord 
Derby,  and  the  free  trade  or  liberal  Conservatives,  led  by  Aberdeen 

Administration  (London,  1905).  Briefer  accounts  of  the  period  1783-1830  will  be 
found  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  I.,  409-440,  and  in 
Cambridge  Modern  History,  IX.,  Chap.  22  and  X.,  Chaps.  18-20  (see  bibliography, 
pp.  856-870).  Important  biographies  of  political  leaders  include  A.  von  Ruville, 
William  Pitt,  Graf  von  Chatham,  3  vols.  (Stuttgart  and  Berlin,  1905);  W.  D. 
Green,  William  Pitt,  Earl  of  Chatham  (London,  1901);  E.  Fitzmaurice,  Life  of 
William,  Earl  of  Shelburne,  3  vols.  (London,  1875-1876);  Lord  P.  H.  Stanhope, 
Life  of  Pitt,  4  vols.  (London,  1861-1862);  Lord  Rosebery,  Pitt  (London,  1891);  and 
Lord  J.  Russell,  Life  of  Charles  James  Fox,  3  vols.  (1859-1867). 

1  The  name  Conservative  was  employed  by  Canning  as  early  as  1824.  Its  use 
was  already  becoming  common  when,  in  January,  1835,  Peel,  in  his  manifesto  to 
the  electors  of  Tamworth,  undertook  an  exposition  of  the  principles  of  what  he 
declared  should  be  known  henceforth  as  the  Conservative— not  the  Tory— party. 


148  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  Gladstone,  and  the  breach  enabled  the  Liberals,  under  Lord  John 
Russell,  to  recover  office  in  1847.  A  third  stage  of  the  period,  i.  e.,  1847 
to  1859,  was  one  of  ministerial  instability.  Disputes  between  Russell 
and  Palmerston,  the  foreign  minister,  undermined  the  Liberal  position, 
and  in  1852  the  Conservatives,  under  the  leadership  of  Derby,  returned 
to  power.  In  1853,  however,  the  free  trade  Conservatives  joined  the 
Liberals,  overthrew  Derby,  and  placed  in  office  a  coalition  ministry  un- 
der Aberdeen.  This  government  maintained  itself  until  1855,  when,  by 
reason  of  discontent  aroused  by  his  management  of  England's  part  in 
the  Crimean  War,  Aberdeen  resigned  and  was  succeeded  by  Palmers- 
ton,  at  the  head  of  another  Liberal  ministry.  Foreign  difficulties 
drove  Palmerston  from  office  early  in  1858,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
second  Derby  ministry  marked  a  brief  return  of  the  Conservatives  to 
control.  Defeated,  however,  on  a  resolution  censuring  the  Govern- 
ment for  the  inadequacy  of  the  reform  bill  introduced  by  it  in  1859, 
and  also  for  the  failure  of  Lord  Derby  to  prevent  the  war  between 
France  and  Austria,  the  ministry  resigned,  in  April,  1859,  and  Lord 
Palmerston  returned  to  power,  with  Gladstone  and  Lord  John  Russell 
as  colleagues.  Gladstone's  acceptance  of  office  under  Palmerston 
marked  the  final  severance  of  the  Peelites  from  the  Conservative  party 
and  the  abandonment  of  all  hope  of  the  reconstruction  for  which  both 
Gladstone  and  Derby  had  labored. 

166.  Party  Regeneration. — A  fourth,  and  final,  stage  of  the  Liberal 
period  covered  the  years  1859  to  1874.  Its  importance  arises  not 
merely  from  the  fact  that  the  culmination  of  the  power  of  the  Liberals 
during  the  nineteenth  century  was  attained  at  this  point,  but  from  the 
further  fact  that  it  was  during  these  years  that  the  Liberal  party  was 
transformed  and  popularized  so  as  to  be  made  for  the  first  time  really 
worthy  of  the  name  which  it  bears.  As  long  as  Palmerston  lived  the 
Liberals  of  the  old  school,  men  who  disliked  radicalism  and  were  con- 
tent with  the  reform  of  1832,  were  in  the  ascendancy,  but  after  the 
premier's  death,  October  18,  1865,  new  ideas  and  influences  asserted 
themselves  and  a  new  Liberal  party  came  rapidly  to  the  fore.  This 
regenerated  party,  whose  leader  was  Gladstone,  rejected  definitely  the 
ideal  of  laissez-faire,  took  over  numerous  principles  of  the  Radicals, 
and,  with  the  watchwords  of  "peace,  retrenchment,  and  reform," 
began  to  insist  upon  a  broader  parliamentary  franchise  and  upon  fresh 
legislation  for  the  protection  and  general  betterment  of  the  masses. 
The  new  liberalism  was  paralleled,  however,  by  a  new  conservatism, 
whose  principal  exponent  was  Disraeli.  The  new  Conservatives  like- 
wise advocated  franchise  reform  and  legislation  for  the  people,  al- 
though they  put  more  emphasis  upon  the  latter  than  upon  the  former; 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  149 

and  they  especially  favored  a  firm  foreign  policy,  an  extension  of 
British  interests  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  the  adoption  of  a  scheme 
of  colonial  federation.  They  appeared,  at  least,  to  have  less  regard 
for  peace  and  for  economy  than  had  the  Liberals. 

The  temper  and  tendencies  of  the  parties  as  they  gradually  assumed 
shape  during  the  third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  have  been 
characterized  effectively  by  a  recent  writer  as  follows:  "The  parties  of 
which  Gladstone  and  Disraeli  were  the  chiefs  were  linked  by  continuous 
historical  succession  with  the  two  great  sections  or  factions  of  the  aris- 
tocracy, or  hereditary  oligarchy,  which  ruled  Great  Britain  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  But  each  had  been  transformed  by  national 
changes  since  the  Reform  Bill.  The  Whigs  had  become  Liberals,  the 
Tories  had  become  Conservatives.  The  Liberal  party  had  absorbed 
part  of  the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution.  They  stood  now  for 
individual  liberty,  laying  especial  stress  on  freedom  of  trade,  freedom 
of  contract,  and  freedom  of  competition.  They  had  set  themselves  to 
break  down  the  rule  of  the  landowner  and  the  Church,  to  shake  off  the 
fetters  of  Protection,  and  to  establish  equality  before  the  law.  Their 
acceptance  of  egalitarian  principles  led  them  to  adopt  democratic 
ideals,  to  advocate  extension  of  the  suffrage,  and  the  emancipation  of 
the  working  classes.  Such  principles,  though  not  revolutionary,  are  to 
some  extent  disruptive  in  their  tendency;  and  their  adoption  by  the 
Liberals  had  forced  the  Tory  party  to  range  themselves  in  defense  of 
the  existing  order  of  things.  They  professed  to  stand  for  the  Crown, 
the  Church,  and  the  Constitution.  They  were  compelled  by  the  ir- 
resistible trend  of  events  to  accept  democratic  principles  and  to  carry 
out  democratic  reforms.  They  preferred,  in  fact,  to  carry  out  such 
reforms  themselves,  in  order  that  the  safeguards  which  they  considered 
necessary  might  be  respected.  Democratic  principles  having  been 
adopted,  both  parties  made  it  their  object  to  redress  grievances;  but 
the  Conservatives  showed  a  natural  predisposition  to  redress  those 
grievances  which  arose  from  excessive  freedom  of  competition,  the 
Liberals  were  the  more  anxious  to  redress  those  which  were  the  result 
of  hereditary  or  customary  privilege.  The  harmony  of  the  State  con- 
sists in  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  opposing  forces  of  liberty  and 
order.  The  Liberals  laid  more  stress  upon  liberty,  the  Conservatives 
attached  more  importance  to  order  and  established  authority."  1 

167.  The  First  Gladstone  Ministry. — Upon  the  death  of  Palmerston 

in  1865  Lord  John  Russell  became  premier  a  second  time,  but  in  the 

course  of  the  following  year  a  franchise  reform  bill  brought  forward  by 

the  Government  was  defeated  in  the  Commons,  through  the  instru- 

1 S.  Leathes,  in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XII.,  30-31. 


150  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

mentality  chiefly  of  a  group  of  old  Liberals  (the  "Adullamites")  who 
opposed  modification  of  the  electoral  system,  and  by  curious  circum- 
stance it  fell  to  the  purely  Conservative  Derby-Disraeli  ministry  of 
1866-1868  not  only  to  carry  the  first  electoral  reform  since  1832  but  to 
impart  to  that  reform  a  degree  of  thoroughness  upon  which  none  save 
the  most  advanced  radicals  had  cared  to  insist.  The  results  of  the 
doubling  of  the  electorate  were  manifest  in  the  substantial  majority 
which  the  new  Liberals  acquired  at  the  elections  of  1868,  and  the 
Disraeli  ministry  (Derby  had  retired  early  in  the  year)  gave  place  to  a 
government  presided  over  by  the  indubitable  leader  of  the  new  Liberal 
forces,  Gladstone.  The  years  1868-1874,  covered  by  the  first  Gladstone 
ministry,  were  given  Distinction  by  a  remarkable  series  of  reforms, 
including  the  disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  Ireland  (1869),  the 
enactment  of  an  Irish  land  bill  (1870),  the  institution  of  national 
control  of  elementary  education  (1870),  and  the  adoption  of  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  in  parliamentary  elections  (1872).  Defeated  at  last, 
however,  on  an  Irish  university  bill,  the  ministry  resigned,  and  when, 
at  the  elections  of  1874,  the  country  was  appealed  to,  the  Conserva- 
tives obtained  a  clear  parliamentary  majority  of  fifty  seats.  This 
was  the  first  really  dependable  majority,  indeed,  which  the  party 
had  possessed  since  1842.  Disraeli  became  prime  minister  and  Derby 
minister  for  foreign  affairs.1 

IV.  THE  SECOND  ERA  OF  CONSERVATIVE  ASCENDANCY,  1874-1905 

168.  The  Question  of  Irish  Home  Rule. — During  the  five  years 
covered  by  the  life  of  the  second  Disraeli  ministry  British  imperialism 
reached  flood  tide.  The  reforms  of  the  Gladstone  government  were 

1  The  political  history  of  the  period  1830-1874  is  covered  very  satisfactorily  in 
W.  N.  Molesworth,  History  of  England  from  the  Year  1830-1874,  3  vols.  (London, 
1874).  Other  general  works  include:  Walpole,  History  of  England,  vols.  3-6,  ex- 
tending to  1856;  H.  Paul,  History  of  Modern  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1904-1906), 
vols.  1-3,  beginning  with  1845;  J-  McCarthy,  History  of  Our  Own  Times  from  the 
Accession  of  Queen  Victoria,  7  vols.  (1877-1905),  vols.  1-3,  beginning  with  the 
events  of  1837;  J.  F.  Bright,  History  of  England,  5  vols.  (London,  1875-1894),  vol.  4; 
and  S.  Low  and  L.  C.  Sanders,  History  of  England  during  the  Reign  of  Victoria 
(London,  1907).  Briefer  treatment  will  be  found  in  May  and  Holland,  Constitu- 
tional History  of  England,  L,  440-468,  III.,  67-88,  and  in  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  XL,  chaps.  1,11,12  (see  bibliography,  pp.  867-873).  Biographies  of  im- 
portance include  S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Lord  John  Russell,  2  vols.  (London,  1889); 
H.  Maxwell,  Life  of  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  2  vols.  (London,  1899);  J.  Morley, 
Life  of  William  E.  Gladstone,  3  vols.  (London,  1903);  J.  R.  Thursfield,  Peel  (Lon- 
don, 1907);  W.  F.  Monypenny,  Life  of  Benjamin  Disraeli,  Earl  of  Beaconsfield 
(London,  1910-1912),  vols.  1-2,  covering  the  years  1804-1846;  and  S.  Lee,  Queen 
Victoria,  a  Biography  (rev.  ed.,  London,  1904). 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  151 

not  undone,  but  the  Conservative  leaders  interested  themselves  prin- 
cipally in  foreign  and  colonial  questions,  and  home  affairs  received  but 
scant  attention.  The  result  was  public  discontent,  and  at  the  elections 
of  1880  the  Liberals  obtained  a  parliamentary  majority  of  more  than 
one  hundred  seats.  It  remained  for  the  second  Gladstone  government, 
established  at  this  point,  to  adjust  a  number  of  difficulties  on  the 
frontiers  of  the  Empire;  but  the  heart  of  the  ministry  was  not  in  this 
sort  of  work  and  the  way  was  cleared  as  speedily  as  possible  for  a 
return  to  the  consideration  of  problems  of  a  domestic  nature.  In  1884 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  was  carried,  and  in  1885  the 
Redistribution  of  Seats  Act.  But  now,  and  throughout  a  decade  and  a 
half  following,  the  question  which  overshadowed  all  others  was  that  of 
Home  Rule  for  Ireland.  Upon  this  issue,  in  its  variety  of  aspects, 
governments  henceforth  rose  and  fell,  parties  were  disrupted  and 
re-aligned.  In  1885  the  Parnellites,  or  Irish  Nationalists,  incensed 
because  of  Gladstone's  indifference  to  Home  Rule,  and  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  ministry's  unpopularity  arising  from  the  failure  of  its 
Egyptian  policy,  compassed  the  defeat  of  the  Government  on  a  measure 
relating  to  the  taxing  of  beer  and  spirits.  The  Marquis  of  Salisbury, 
who  after  the  death  of  Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  1881,  had  become  leader 
of  the  Conservatives,  made  up  a  government;  but,  absolutely  depend- 
ent upon  the  Irish  Nationalist  alliance  and  yet  irrevocably  committed 
against  Home  Rule,  the  Salisbury  ministry  found  itself  from  the  out- 
set in  an  impossible  position.  ^.  / 

169.  The  Liberal  Unionists. — The  elections  at  the  end  of  1885 
yielded  the  Conservatives  249  seats,  the  Irish  Nationalists  86,  and  the 
Liberals  335,  and  January  28,  1886,  the  Salisbury  ministry  retired. 
Gladstone  returned  to  power  and  Home  Rule  took  its  place  in  the 
formal  programme  of  the  Liberal  party.  Then  followed,  April  8, 1886, 
the  introduction  of  the  first  of  Gladstone's  memorable  Home  Rule 
bills.  The  measure  accorded  the  Irish  a  separate  parliament  at  Dublin, 
cut  them  off  from  representation  at  Westminster,  and  required  them 
to  bear  a  proportionate  share  of  the  expenses  of  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment. It  was  thrown  out  by  the  Commons  on  the  second  reading. 
The  Conservatives  opposed  it  solidly,  many  of  the  Irish  Nationalists 
were  dissatisfied  with  it,  and  upwards  of  a  hundred  Liberal  members, 
led  by  Joseph  Chamberlain,  flatly  refused  to  follow  the  majority  of 
their  fellow-partisans  in  voting  for  it.  Under  the  name  of  Liberal 
Unionists  these  dissenters  eventually  broke  entirely  from  their  earlier 
affiliation;  and,  inclining  more  and  more  toward  the  position  occupied 
by  the  Conservatives,  they  ended  by  losing  their  identity  hi  the  ranks 
of  that  party.  Their  accession,  however,  brought  the  Conservatives 


152  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

new  vigor,  new  issues,  and  even  a  new  name,  for  in  more  recent  days 
the  term  Conservative  has  been  supplanted  very  generally  by  that  of 
Unionist. 

160.  Second  Salisbury  and  Fourth  Gladstone  Ministries. — The  de- 
feat of  Home  Rule  was  followed  by  a  national  election,  the  result  of 
which  was  the  return  of  316  Conservatives,  78  Liberal  Unionists,  191 
Gladstonian  Liberals,  and  85  Irish  Nationalists.  The  combined 
unionists  had  a  majority  of  118,  and  July  26,  1886,  the  short-lived 
third  Gladstone  government  was  succeeded  by  a  second  ministry 
presided  over  by  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury.  Home  Rule,  however, 
was  not  dead.  During  the  years  of  the  Salisbury  ministry  (1886-1892) 
the  authorities  were  obliged  to  devote  much  attention  to  Irish  affairs, 
and  in  1892  the  Liberals  were  returned  to  office  on  a  platform  which 
stipulated  expressly  Home  Rule  for  Ireland.1  The  Conservative  ap- 
peal to  the  country  at  this  time  was  made  on  the  ground,  first,  that 
Home  Rule  should  be  resisted,  and,  second,  that  the  Government's 
achievements  in  reform  and  constructive  legislation  entitled  the  party 
to  continuance  in  power;  but  in  the  new  parliament  there  was  an  ad- 
verse majority  of  forty,  and  August  18  Gladstone,  for  the  fourth  time, 
was  requested  to  form  a  ministry.2  The  elections  of  1892  are  of  interest 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  they  marked  the  first  appearance  of  inde- 
pendent labor  representatives  in  Parliament.  Miners'  delegates  and 
an  agricultural  laborer  had  been  elected  before,  but  they  had  identified 
themselves  in  all  instances  with  the  radical  wing  of  the  Liberals.  There 
were  now  returned,  however,  -four  members,  including  John  Burns 
and  Keir  Hardie,  who  chose  to  hold  aloof  and,  as  they  expressed  it, 
"to  sit  in  opposition  until  they  should  cross  the  house  to  form  a  labor 
government."  The  Home  Rule  bill  which  Gladstone  introduced 
February  13,  1893,  differed  from  its  predecessor  of  1886  principally  in 
not  excluding  the  Irish  from  representation  at  Westminster.  It  was 
passed  in  the  House  of  Commons,  although  by  an  ultimate  majority 
of  but  thirty-four,  but  in  the  Lords  it  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  419  to 
41.  In  the  face  of  an  obstacle  so  formidable  as  that  imposed  by  the 
adverse  majority  in  the  upper  chamber  it  appeared  useless  to  press 
the  issue.  The  Lords,  whose  power  in  legislation  became  at  this 
point  greater  than  at  any  time  since  1832,  systematically  balked  the 

1  This  was  the  "Newcastle  Programme,"  drawn  up  at  a  convention  of  the  Na- 
tional Liberal  Federation  at  Newcastle  in  October,  1891.    Items  in  the  programme, 
in  addition  to  Home  Rule,  included  the  disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  Wales 
and  Scotland,  a  local  veto  on  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  the  abolition  of  the 
plural  franchise,  and  articles  defining  employers'  liability  and  limiting  the  hours 
of  labor. 

2  C.  A.  Whitmore,  Six  Years  of  Unionist  Government,  1886-1892  (London,  1892) 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  153 

Government  at  every  turn,  and  March  3,  1894,  Gladstone,  aged  and 
weary  of  parliamentary  strife,  retired  from  office.  His  last  speech  in 
the  Commons  comprised  a  sharp  arraignment  of  the  House  of  Lords, 
with  a  forecast  of  the  clash  which  eventually  would  lead  (and,  in  point 
of  fact,  has  led)  to  the  reconstitution  of  that  chamber. 

161.  Third  and  Fourth  Salisbury  Ministries. — For  the  time  the  Earl 
of  Rosebery,  who  had  been  foreign  secretary,  assumed  the  premier- 
ship and  there  was  no  break  in  the  Government's  policy.    In  June, 
1895,  however,  the  ministry  suffered  a  defeat  on  the  floor  of  the  Com- 
mons, and  the  Marquis  of  Salisbury  was  a  third  time  invited  to  form 
a  government.   The  retirement  of  Gladstone  brought  to  light  numerous 
rifts  within  the  Liberal  party,  and  when  the  new  ministry,  in  July, 
appealed  to  the  country,  with  Home  Rule  as  a  preponderating  issue, 
its  supporters  secured  in  the  Commons  a  majority  of  152  seats  over  the 
Liberals  and  Nationalists  combined.    The  Liberal  Unionists  returned 
71  members,  and  to  cement  yet  more  closely  the  Conservative-Unionist 
alliance  Lord  Salisbury  made  up  a  ministry  in  which  the  -Unionist 
elements  were  ably  represented  by  Joseph  Chamberlain  as  Colonial 
Secretary,  Viscount  Goschen  as  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  and  the 
Duke  of  Devonshire  as  President  of  the  Council.    The  premier  himself 
returned  to  the  post  of  Foreign  Secretary,  and  his  nephew,  Arthur  J. 
Balfour,  now  become  again  Government  leader  in  the  Commons,  to 
that  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.    The  accession  of  the  third  Salis- 
bury ministry  marked  the  beginning  of  a  Unionist  ascendancy  which 
lasted  uninterruptedly  a  full  decade.    In  1902  Lord  Salisbury,  whose 
fourth  ministry,  dating  from  the  elections  of  1900,  was  continuous 
with  his  third,  retired  from  public  life,  but  he  was  succeeded  in  the 
premiership  by  Mr.  Balfour,  and  the  personnel  and  policies  of  the 
Government  continued  otherwise  unchanged.1 

162.  Unionist  Imperialism:  the  Elections   of   1900. — During    the 
larger  part  of  this  Unionist  decade  the  Liberal  party,  rent  by  factional 
disputes  and  personal  rivalries,  afforded  but  ineffective  opposition.2 

1  The  most  useful  works  on  the  party  history  of  the  period  1874-1895  are  Paul, 
History  of  Modern  England,  vols.  4-5,  and  Morley,  Life  of  W.  E.  Gladstone,  vol.  3. 
J.  McCarthy's  History  of  Our  Own  Times,  vols.  4-6,  covers  the  ground  in  a  pop- 
ular way.    Useful  brief  accounts  are  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of 
England,  III.,  88-127,  and  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XII.,  Chap.  3  (bibliography, 
pp.  853-855).    An  excellent  book  is  H.  Whates,  The  Third  Salisbury  Administra- 
tion, 1895-1900  (London,  1901). 

2  The  two  principal  aspirants  to  the  Gladstonian  succession  were  Lord  Rose- 
bery and  Sir  William  Vernon-Harcourt.     Rosebery  represented  the  imperialistic 
element  of  Liberalism  and  advocated  a  return  of  the  party  to  the  general  position 
which  it  had  occupied  prior  to  the  split  on  Home  Rule.    Harcourt  and  the  majority 


154  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

The  Home  Rule  question  fell  into  the  background;  and  although  the 
Unionists  carried  through  a  considerable  amount  of  social  and  indus- 
trial legislation,  the  interests  of  the  period  center  largely  in  the  Govern- 
ment's policies  and  achievements  within  the  domain  of  foreign  and 
colonial  affairs.  The  most  hotly  contested  issue  of  the  decade  was 
imperialism;  the  most  commanding  public  figure  was  Joseph  Chamber- 
lain; the  most  notable  enterprise  undertaken  was  the  war  in  South 
Africa.  In  1900  it  was  resolved  by  the  ministerial  leaders  to  take 
advantage  of  the  public  spirit  engendered  by  the  war  to  procure  for 
the  Unionists  a  fresh  lease  of  power.  Parliament  was  dissolved  and, 
on  the  eve  of  the  announcement  of  the  annexation  of  the  Transvaal, 
a  general  election  was  held.  The  Liberals,  led  since  early  in  1899  by 
Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  charged  the  Unionists  with  neglect 
of  social  and  industrial  matters,  pledged  themselves  to  educational, 
housing,  and  temperance  reform,  and  sought  especially  to  convince 
the  electorate  that  they  might  be  intrusted  with  safety  to  defend 
the  legitimate  interests  of  the  Empire.  The  Government  forced  the 
fight  upon  the  issue  of  South  African  policy  almost  exclusively,  and, 
representing  the  opposition  as  "Little  Englanders,"  went  before  the 
people  with  the  argument  that  from  the  course  that  had  been  entered 
upon  in  South  Africa  there  could  be  no  turning  back,  and  that  the 
present  ministry  was  entitled  to  an  opportunity  to  carry  to  comple- 
tion the  work  that  it  had  begun.  The  appeal  was  altogether  suc- 
cessful. The  Conservatives  obtained  334  seats  and  the  Liberal  Union- 
ists 68 — a  total  of  402;  while  the  Liberals  and  Laborites  carried  but 
1 86  and  the  Nationalists  82 — a  total  of  268.  The  Government 
majority  in  the  new  parliament  was  thus  134,  almost  precisely  that 
of  I895.1 

After  the  elections  dissension  within  the  Liberal  ranks  broke  out 
afresh.  The  Rosebery  wing  maintained  that,  the  South  African  war 
having  been  begun,  it  was  the  duty  of  all  Englishmen  to  support  it, 
and  that  the  Unionist  government  should  be  attacked  only  on  the 
ground  of  mismanagement.  In  July,  1901,  Campbell-Bannerman, 
impelled  by  the  weakness  of  his  position,  demanded  of  his  fellow- 
partisans  that  they  either  ratify  or  repudiate  his  leadership  of  the  party 

of  the  party  opposed  imperialism  and  insisted  upon  attention  rather  to  a  programme 
of  social  reform.  From  Gladstone's  retirement,  in  1894,  to  1896  leadership  de- 
volved upon  Rosebery,  but  from  1896  to  the  beginning  of  1899  Harcourt  was  the 
nominal  leader,  although  Rosebery,  as  a  private  member,  continued  hardly  less  in- 
fluential than  before. 

1 W.  Clarke,  The  Decline  in  English  Liberalism,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
Sept.,  1901;  P.  Hamelle,  Les  elections  anglaises,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
Nov.,  1900. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  155 

in  the  Commons.  Approval  was  accorded,  but  no  progress  was  realized 
toward  an  agreement  upon  policies.  To  careful  observers  it  became 
clear  that  there  could  be  no  effective  revival  of  Liberalism  until  the 
war  in  South  Africa  should  have  been  terminated  and  the  larger  imperial 
problems  involved  in  it  solved.  For  a  time  the  only  clear-cut  parlia- 
mentary opposition  offered  the  Government  was  that  of  the  frankly 
pro-Boer  Nationalists. 

V.  THE  LIBERAL  REVIVAL 

Hu// 
163.  The  Issue  of  Tariff  Reform.— The  rehabilitation  of  the  Liberal 

party  came  during  the  years  1902-1905.  It  was  foreshadowed  by  the 
famous  Chesterfield  speech  of  Lord  Rosebery,  delivered  December  16, 
1901,  although  the  immediate  effect  of  that  effort  was  but  to  accentuate 
party  cleavages,1  and  it  was  made  possible  by  a  reversion  of  the  na- 
tional mind  from  the  war  to  domestic  questions  and  interests.  More 
specifically,  it  was  the  product  of  opposition  to  the  Government's 
Education  Act  of  1902,  of  public  disapproval  of  what  seemed  to  be 
the  growing  arrogance  of  the  Unionist  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords, 
and,  above  all,  of  the  demoralization  which  was  wrought  within  the 
ranks  of  Unionism  by  the  rise  of  the  issue  of  preferential  tariffs. 
In  a  speech  to  his  constituents  at  Birmingham,  May  15,  1903,  Mr. 
Chamberlain,  but  lately  returned  from  a  visit  to  South  Africa  and 
now  at  the  height  of  his  prestige,  startled  the  nation  by  declaring 
that  the  time  had  come  for  Great  Britain  to  abandon  the  free  trade 
doctrines  of  the  Manchester  school  and  to  knit  the  Empire  more  closely 
together,  and  at  the  same  time  to  promote  the  economic  interests  of 
both  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country,  by  the  adoption  of  a  system 
of  preferential  duties  on  imported  foodstuffs.  Later  in  the  year  the 
gifted  exponent  of  this  revolutionary  programme  entered  upon  a 
vigorous  speaking  campaign  in  defense  of  his  proposals,  and  there  was 
set  up  a  large  and  representative  tariff  commission  which  was  charged 
with  the  task  of  framing,  after  due  investigation,  a  tariff  system  which 
would  meet  the  needs  alleged  to  exist.  Among  the  Unionist  leaders 
there  arose  forthwith  a  division  of  opinion  which  portended  open 

1  In  this  speech,  delivered  at  a  great  Liberal  meeting,  there  was  outlined  a  pro- 
gramme upon  which  Rosebery  virtually  offered  to  resume  the  leadership  of  his 
party.  The  question  of  Boer  independence  was  recognized  as  settled,  but  leniency 
toward  the  defeated  people  was  advocated.  It  was  maintained  that  at  the  close  of 
the  war  there  should  be  another  general  election.  And  the  overhauling  of  the 
army,  of  the  navy,  of  the  educational  system,  and  of  the  public  finances,  was 
marked  out  as  an  issue  upon  which  the  Liberals  must  take  an  unequivocal  stand,  as 
also  temperance  reform  and  legislation  upon  the  housing  of  the  poor. 


156  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

rupture.  The  rank  and  file  of  the  party  was  nonplussed  and  undecided, 
and  throughout  many  months  the  subject  engrossed  attention  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  very  nearly  everything  else.1 

In  this  situation  the  Liberals  found  their  opportunity.  All  but 
unanimously  opposed  to  the  suggested  departure,  they  assumed  with 
avidity  the  role  of  defenders  of  England's  "sacred  principle  of  free 
trade  "  and  utilized  to  the  utmost  the  appeal  which  could  now  be  made 
to  the  working  classes  in  behalf  of  cheap  bread.  Mr.  Chamberlain 
denied  that  his  scheme  meant  a  wholesale  reversal  of  the  economic  policy 
of  the  nation,  but  in  the  judgment  of  most  men  the  issue  was  joined 
squarely  between  the  general  principle  of  free  trade  and  that  of  pro- 
tection. Throughout  1904  and  1905  the  Government  found  itself 
increasingly  embarrassed  by  the  fiscal  question,  as  well  as  by  dif- 
ficulties attending  the  administration  of  the  Education  Act,  the 
regulation  of  Chinese  labor  in  South  Africa,  and  a  number  of  other 
urgent  tasks,  and  the  by-elections  resulted  so  uniformly  in  Unionist 
defeats  as  to  presage  clearly  the  eventual  return  of  the  Liberals  to 
power. 

164.  The  Liberals  in  Office:  the  Elections  of  1906.— Hesitating  long, 
but  at  the  last  bowing  somewhat  abruptly  before  the  gathering  storm, 
Mr.  Balfour  tendered  his  resignation  December  4,  1905.  The  Govern- 
ment had  in  the  Commons  a  working  majority  of  seventy-six,  and  the 
Parliament  elected  in  1900  had  still  another  year  of  life.  In  the  Lords 
the  Unionists  outnumbered  their  opponents  ten  to  one.  The  adminis- 
tration, however,  had  fallen  off  enormously  in  popularity,  and  the  obsta- 
cles imposed  by  the  fiscal  cleavage  appeared  insuperable.  Unable  wholly 
to  follow  Mr.  Chamberlain  in  his  projects,  the  premier  had  grown 
weary  of  the  attempt  to  balance  himself  on  the  tight  rope  of  ambiguity 
between  the  free  trade  and  protectionist  wings  of  his  party.  Not  caring, 
however,  to  give  his  opponents  the  advantage  which  would  accrue  from 
an  immediate  dissolution  of  Parliament  and  the  ordering  of  an  election 
which  should  turn  on  clear  issues  raised  by  the  record  of  the  ten  years 
of  Unionist  rule,  he  chose  simply  to  resign  and  so  to  compel  the  forma- 

1  The  literature  of  the  Tariff  Reform  movement  in  Great  Britain  is  voluminous. 
The  nature  of  the  protectionist  proposals  may  be  studied  at  first  hand  in  J.  Cham- 
berlain, Imperial  Union  and  Tariff  Reform;  speeches  delivered  from  May  15  to 
November  4,  1903  (London,  1903).  Worthy  of  mention  are  T.  W.  Mitchell,  The 
Development  of  Mr.  Chamberlain's  Fiscal  Policy,  in  Annals  of  American  Academy 
of  Political  and  Social  Science,  XXIII.,  No.  i  (Jan.,  1904);  R.  Lethbridge,  The 
Evolution  of  Tariff  Reform  in  the  Tory  Party,  in  Nineteenth  Century,  June,  1908; 
and  L.  L.  Price,  An  Economic  View  of  Mr.  Chamberlain's  Proposals,  in  Economic 
Review,  April,  1904.  A  useful  work  is  S.  H.  Jeyes,  Life  of  Joseph  Chamberlain, 
2  vols.  (London,  1903). 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  157 

tion  of  a  new  government  which  itself  should  be  immediately  on  trial 
when  the  inevitable  elections  should  come. 

On  the  day  of  Mr.  Balfour's  resignation  the  king  designated  as  pre- 
mier the  Liberal  leader,  Sir  Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  who  forthwith 
made  up  a  cabinet  of  rather  exceptional  strength  in  which  the  premier 
himself  occupied  the  post  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  Sir  Edward 
Grey  that  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Mr.  Herbert  H.  Asquith  that  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, Mr.  Richard  B.  Haldane  that  of  War,  Lord  Tweedmouth 
that  of  the  Navy,  Mr.  David  Lloyd-George  that  of  President  of  the 
Board  of  Trade,  Mr.  John  Burns  that  of  President  of  the  Local  Govern- 
ment Board,  Mr.  Augustine  Birrell  that  of  President  of  the  Board  of 
Education,  and  Mr.  James  Bryce  that  of  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland. 
January  8,  1906,  the  "Khaki  Parliament"  was  dissolved,  a  general 
election  was  ordered,  and  the  new  parliament  was  fixed  to  meet  at 
the  earliest  legal  date,  February  13.  The  campaign  that  followed  was 
the  most  animated,  except  that  of  1910,  in  recent  British  history.  The 
Unionists,  being  themselves  divided  beyond  repair  on  the  question  of  the 
tarn?,  pinned  their  hope  to  a  disruption  of  the  Liberal  forces  on  the 
issue  of  Home  Rule.  The  Liberal  leaders,  however,  steadfastly  refused 
to  allow  the  Irish  question  to  be  brought  into  the  foreground.  Recogniz- 
ing that  Home  Rule  in  the  immediate  future  was  an  impossibility,  but 
pledging  themselves  to  a  policy  contemplating  its  establishment  by 
degrees,  they  contrived  to  force  the  battle  principally  upon  the  issue 
of  free  trade  versus  protection  and,  in  general,  to  direct  their  most 
telling  attack  upon  the  fiscal  record  and  fiscal  policies  of  their  opponents. 
The  result  was  an  overwhelming  Liberal  triumph.  In  a  total  of 
6,555,301  votes,1  4,026,704  were  cast  for  Liberal,  Nationalist,  and  Labor 
candidates,  and  only  2,528,597  for  Conservatives  and  Unionists.  There 
were  returned  to  the  House  of  Commons  374  Liberals,  84  Nationalists, 
54  Laborites,  131  Conservatives,  and  27  Liberal  Unionists,  assuring  the 
Liberals  and  their  allies  a  clear  preponderance  of  354-2  Prior  to  the 
elections  careful  observers  believed  the  return  of  the  Liberals  to  power 
inevitable,  but  a  victory  of  such  proportions  was  not  dreamed  of  by  the 
most  ardent  of  the  party's  well-wishers.3 

1  The  number  of  electors  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  1906  was  7,266,708. 

2  Of  the  Opposition  102  were  Tariff  Reformers  of  the  Chamberlain  school,  while 
but  16  were  thoroughgoing  "Free  Fooders." 

3  M.  Caudel,  Les  elections  g6n6rales  anglaises  (Janvier  1006),  in  Annales  des 
Sciences  Politiques,  March,  1906;  E.  de  Noirmont,  Les  Elections  anglaises  de  Jan- 
vier 1906;  les  resultats  ge"n£raux  in  Questions  Diplomatique*  et  Coloniales,  March  i, 
1006;  E.  Porritt,  Party  Conditions  in  England,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
June,  1906. 


158  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


VI.  THE  RULE  or  THE  LIBERALS,  1906-1912 

165.  The  Liberal  Mandate. — The  Liberal  ascendancy,  made  thus 
secure  by  the  elections  of  1906,  has  continued  uninterruptedly  to  the 
date  of  writing  (1912),  and  the  years  covered  by  it  have  been  in  many 
respects  the  most  important  in  the  political  history  of  modern  Britain. 
The  significance  of  the  period  arises  principally  from  the  vast  amount  of 
social  and  economic  legislation  that  has  been  attempted  within  it.    A 
considerable  portion  of  this  legislation  has  been  successfully  carried 
through  and  is  now  in  effect.    Some  important  portions,  however,  have 
failed  of  eventual  adoption,  chiefly  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of 
the  Unionist  majority  in  the  Lords;  and  a  direct  outcome  of  the  series 
of  clashes  between  the  Liberals  and  the  Lords  has  been  the  important 
constitutional  readjustments  comprised  within  the  Parliament  Act  of 
1911  already  described.    Speaking  broadly,  the  Liberals  were  restored 
to  power  in  1906  because  the  nation  desired  the  doing  of  certain  things 
which  the  Unionists  seemed  unable  or  disinclined  to  do.   Most  important 
among  these  things  were:  (i)  the  reduction  of  public  expenditures  and 
the  curbing  of  national  extravagance;  (2)  the  remission  of  taxation 
imposed  during  the  South  African  war;  (3)  the  reform  of  the  army;  and 
(4)  the  undertaking  of  an  extended  programme  of  social  reform,  em- 
bracing the  establishment  of  old  age  pensions,  the  remedying  of  unem- 
ployment, the  regulation  of  the  liquor  traffic,  and  the  liberation  of  educa- 
tion from  ecclesiastical  domination.    The  nation  was  solicitous,  too, 
that  the  system  of  free  trade  be  maintained  without  impairment. 
To  all  of  these  policies,  and  more,  the  Liberals  were  committed  without 
reserve  when  they  entered  office. 

166.  The  Party's  Performance. — During  the  years  intervening  be- 
tween the  elections  of  1906  and  those  of  1910  the  Liberal  governments 
presided  over  successively  by  Mr.  Campbell-Bannerman  and  Mr.  Asquith1 
made  honest  effort  to  redeem  the  election  pledges  of  the  party.    They 
stopped  the  alarming  increase  of  the  national  debt  and  made  provision 
for  debt  reduction  at  a  rate  equalled  at  but  two  brief  periods  since  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.    They  repealed  approximately  half 
of  the  war  taxes  which  were  still  operative  when  they  assumed  office. 
In  the  matter  of  national  expenditures  they  accomplished  a  momentary 

1  Mr.  Campbell-Bannerman  resigned  April  5,  1908.  His  successor  was  Mr.  As- 
quith, late  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  Most  of  the  ministers  were  continued 
in  their  respective  offices,  but  Mr.  Lloyd-George  became  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, Mr.  Winston  Churchill  President  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Lord  Tweed- 
mouth  President  of  the  Council,  and  the  Earl  of  Crewe  Secretary  of  State  for  the 
Colonies. 


P$LITT«AL  PARTIES  159 

reduction,  although  the  normal  increase  of  civil  outlays,  the  adoption 
of  old  age  pensions,  and,  above  all,  the  demand  of  the  propertied  in- 
terests for  the  maintenance  of  a  two-power  naval  standard  brought 
about  eventually  an  increase  rather  than  a  diminution  of  the  sums 
carried  by  the  annual  budget.  In  accordance  with  a  scheme  worked 
out  by  Mr.  Haldane  they  remodelled  the  army.  They  maintained 
free  trade.  They  made  no  headway  toward  Home  Rule,  but  they 
enacted,  in  1909,  an  Irish  Universities  bill  and  an  Irish  Land  Purchase 
bill  which  were  regarded  as  highly  favorable  to  Irish  interests.  Above 
all,  they  labored  to  meet  the  demand  of  the  nation  for  social  legislation. 
The  prevalence  of  unemployment,  the  misery  occasioned  by  wide- 
spread poverty,  the  recurrence  of  strikes  and  other  industrial  disorders, 
the  growing  volume  of  emigration,  and  other  related  aspects  of  England 's 
present  social  unsettlement,  have  served  to  fix  unshakably  in  the  public 
mind  the  idea  that  the  state  must  plan,  undertake,  and  bear  the  cost 
of  huge  projects  of  social  and  industrial  amelioration  and  of  democrati- 
zation and  reform.  In  the  realization  of  those  portions  of  their  pro- 
gramme which  relate  to  these  matters  the  Liberals  have  been  only 
partially  successful.  They  enacted  important  labor  legislation,  including 
an  eight-hour  working  day  in  mines,  a  Labor  Exchanges  act,  and  a 
Trades  Disputes  act,  and  they  established,  by  act  of  1908,  an  elaborate 
system  of  old  age  pensions.  By  reason  of  the  opposition  of  the  House 
of  Lords,  however,  they  failed  to  enact  the  bill  of  1906  for  the  abolition 
of  plural  voting,  the  hotly  contested  measure  of  1906  providing  for  the 
undenominationalizmg  of  the  schools,  the  Aliens  Bill  of  1906,  the 
Land  Values  Bill  of  1907,  the  Licensing  Bill  of  1908,  the  London  Elec- 
tions Bill  of  1909,  and,  finally,  the  Finance  Bill  of  1909,  whose  rejection 
by  the  Lords  precipitated  a  dissolution  of  Parliament  and  the  ordering 
of  the  elections  of  January,  i$i<». 

167.  The  Liberals  Versus  the  Lords:  the  Elections  of  January,  1910. 
— Four  years  of  conflict  with  the  overpowering  Opposition  in  the  upper 
chamber  brought  the  Liberals  to  a  place  from  which  they  neither  could 
nor  would  go  on  until  certain  fundamentals  were  settled.  The  first 
was  the  assurance  of  revenues  adequate  to  meet  the  growing  demands 
upon  the  treasury.  The  second  was  the  alteration  of  the  status  of  the 
Lords  to  make  certain  the  predominance  of  the  popular  branch  of  Parlia- 
ment in  finance  and  legislation.  During  the  two  years  (1909-1911) 
while  these  great  issues  were  pending  the  nation  was  stirred  to  the 
depths  and  party  conflict  was  unprecedented  in  intensity.  On  the 
side  of  finance,  Unionists  and  Liberals  were  in  substantial  agreement 
upon  the  policies — especially  old  age  pensions  and  naval  aggrandize- 
ment— which  rendered  larger  outlays  inevitable;  they  differed,  rather, 


160  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

upon  the  means  by  which  the  necessary  funds  should  be  obtained.  The 
solution  offered  in  the  Lloyd-George  budget  of  1909  was  the  imposition 
of  new  taxes  on  land  and  the  increase  of  liquor  license  duties  and  of 
the  taxes  on  incomes  and  inheritances.  The  new  burdens  were  contrived 
to  fall  almost  wholly  upon  the  propertied,  especially  the  landholding, 
classes.  To  this  plan  the  Unionists  offered  the  alternative  of  Tariff 
Reform,  urging  that  the  needed  revenues  should  be  derived  from 
duties  laid  principally  upon  imported  foodstuffs,  although  the  free 
trade  members  of  the  party  could  not  with  consistency  lend  this  proposal 
their  support.  The  rejection  of  the  Finance  Bill  by  the  Lords,  No- 
vember 30,  1909,  sweeping  aside  as  it  did  three  centuries  of  unbroken 
precedent,  brought  to  a  crisis  the  question  of  the  mending  or  ending 
of  the  Lords,  and  although  the  electoral  contest  of  January,  1910,  was 
fought  immediately  upon  the  issue  of  the  Government's  finance  pro- 
posals, the  question  of  the  Lords  could  by  no  means  be  kept  in  the 
background.  The  results  of  this  election  were  disappointing  to  all 
parties  save  the  Nationalists.  The  final  returns  gave  the  Liberals  274 
seats,  the  Unionists  273,  the  Nationalists  82,  and  the  Laborites  41. 
The  Asquith  government  found  itself  still  in  power,  but  absolutely 
dependent  upon  the  co-operation  of  the  Labor  and  Nationalist  groups. 
Upon  the  great  issues  involved  there  was  no  very  clear  pronounce- 
ment, but  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  tax  proposals  would 
be  enacted,  that  some  reconstitution  of  the  House  of  Lords  would  be 
undertaken,  and  that  free  trade  would  not  yet  be  in  any  measure 
abandoned.1 

168.  The  Liberal  Triumph:  the  Elections  of  December,  1910. — The 
developments  of  the  ensuing  year  and  a  half  have  been  sketched  else- 
where.2 They  comprised,  in  the  main:  (i)  the  re-introduction  and  the 
enactment  of  the  Finance  Bill  of  1909:  (2)  the  bringing  forward  by 

XR.  G.  L6vy,  Le  budget  radical  anglais,  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire, 
Oct.  10,  1909;  G.  L.  Fox,  The  Lloyd-George  Budget,  in  Yale  Review  (Feb.,  1910); 
E.  Porritt,  The  Struggle  over  the  Lloyd-George  Budget,  in  Quarterly  Journal  of 
Economics,  Feb.,  1910;  P.  Hamelle,  Les  elections  anglaises,  in  Annales  des  Sciences 
Politiques,  May  15,  1910;  S.  Brooks,  The  British  Elections,  in  North  American 
Review,  March,  1910;  W.  T.  Stead,  The  General  Elections  in  Great  Britain,  in 
Revi-ew  of  Reviews,  Feb.,  1910.  A  useful  survey  is  Britannicus,  Four  Years  of 
British  Liberalism,  in  North  American  Review,  Feb.,  1910,  and  a  more  detailed  one 
is  C.  T.  King,  The  Asquith  Parliament,  1906-1909;  a  Popular  History  of  its  Men 
and  Measures  (London,  1910).  A  valuable  article  is  E.  Porritt,  British  Legislation 
in  1906,  in  Yale  Review,  Feb.,  1907.  A  French  work  of  some  value  is  P.  Millet, 
La  crise  anglais  (Paris,  1910).  A  useful  collection  of  speeches  on  the  public  issues 
of  the  period  1906-1909  is  W.  S.  Churchill,  Liberalism  and  the  Social  Problem  (Lon- 
don, 1909). 

2  See  pp.  108-111. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  161 

Mr.  Asquith  of  the  Government's  proposals  relative  to  the  alteration 
of  relations  between  the  two  houses  of  Parliament;  (3)  the  adoption 
by  the  House  of  Lords  of  the  principle  of  Lord  Rosebery's  projected 
scheme  of  upper  chamber  reform;  (4)  the  interruption  and  postponement 
of  the  contest  by  reason  of  the  death  of  Edward  VII.;  (5)  the  failure 
of  the  Constitutional  Conference  in  the  summer  of  1910;  (6)  the  adop- 
tion by  the  second  chamber  of  the  reform  resolutions  of  Lord  Lans- 
downe;  (7)  the  dissolution  of  Parliament,  after  an  existence  of  but 
ten  months,  to  afford  an  opportunity  for  a  fresh  appeal  to  the  country 
on  the  specific  issue  of  second  chamber  reform;  (8)  the  elections  of  De- 
cember, 1 910,  and  the  assembling  of  the  new  parliament  in  January,  1911 ; 
and  (9)  the  re-introduction  and  the  final  enactment,  in  the  summer 
of  1911,  of  the  Government's  momentous  Parliament  Bill.  At  the 
December  elections  the  contending  forces  were  so  solidly  entrenched 
that  the  party  quotas  in  the  House  of  Commons  remained  all  but 
unchanged.  Following  the  elections  they  stood  as  follows:  Liberals, 
272;  Unionists,  272;  Nationalists,  76;  Independent  Nationalists  (follow- 
ers of  William  O'Brien),  8;  and  Laborites,  42.  The  Unionists  gained 
substantially  in  Lancashire,  Devonshire,  and  Cornwall,  but  lost  ground 
in  London  and  in  several  boroughs  throughout  the  country.  Still  de- 
pendent upon  the  good-will  of  the  minor  parties,  the  Government  ad- 
dressed itself  afresh  to  the  limitation  of  the  veto  power  of  the  Lords  and 
to  the  programme  of  social  amelioration  which  during  the  recent  months 
of  excitement  had  been  accorded  meager  attention.  Effort  in  the  one 
direction  bore  fruit  in  the  Parliament  Act,  approved  by  the  crown 
August  1 8,  1911;  while  upon  the  other  side  substantial  results  were 
achieved  in  the  enactment,  December  1 6, 1911,  of  a  far-reaching  meas- 
ure instituting  a  national  system  of  insurance  against  both  sickness  and 
unemployment.1 

1  On  the  elections  of  December,  1910,  see  P.  Hamelle,  La  crise  anglaise:  les 
Elections  de  de"cembre  1910,  in  Revue  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July-Aug.,  1911; 
E.  T.  Cook,  The  Election — Before  and  After,  in  Contemporary  Review,  Jan.,  1911; 
Britannicus,  The  British  Elections,  in  North  American  Review,  Jan.,  1911;  and 
A.  Kann,  Les  Elections  anglaises,  in  Questions  Diplomatique*  et  Coloniales,  Jan.  16, 

1911.  The  best  account  of  the  adoption  of  the  Parliament  Bill  is  A.  L.  P.  Dennis, 
The  Parliament  Act  of  1911,  in  American  Political  Science  Review,  May  and  Aug., 

1912.  For  other  references  see  p.  115.    On  the  National  Insurance  Act  see  E.  Por- 
ritt,  The  British  National  Insurance  Act,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly,  June, 
1912;  A.  Gigot,  La  nouvelle  loi  anglaise  sur  1'assurance  nationale,  in  Le  Corre- 
spondant,  May  10,  1912;  O.  Clark,  The  National  Insurance  Act  of  1911  (London, 
1912);  and  A.  S.  C.  Carr,  W.  H.  Stuart,  and  J.  H.  Taylor,  National  Insurance 
(London,  1912).    The  text  of  the  Insurance  Act  is  printed  in  Bulletin  of  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  102  (Washington,  1912). 


162  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


VII.  THE  PARTIES  or  TO-DAY 

169.  Significance  of  "  Liberal  "  and  "  Conservative."— Of  the  four 
political  parties  of  Great  Britain  to-day  one,  the  Irish  Nationalist,  is 
localized  in  Ireland  and  has  for  its  essential  purpose  the  attainment 
of  the  single  end  of  Irish  Home  Rule; 1  another,  the  Labor  party,  is 
composed  all  but  exclusively  of  workingmen,  mainly  members  of  trade- 
unions,  and  exists  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  laboring  masses; 
while  the  two  older  and  more  powerful  ones,  the  liberal  and  the 
Conservative  or  Unionist,  are  broadly  national  in  their  constituencies 
and  well-nigh  universaT  in  the  range  of  their  principles  and  policies. 
It  is  essential  to  observe,  however,  that  while  the  programme  of  the 
Nationalists  is,  at  least  to  a  certain  point,  perfectly  precise,  and  that 
of  the  Laborites  is  hardly  less  so,  there  is  no  longer,  despite  the  heat 
of  recurring  electoral  and  parliamentary  combats,  much  that  is  funda- 
mental or  permanent  in  the  demarcation  which  sets  off  the  two  major 
parties  the  one  against  the  other.  Even  the  names  "Liberal"  and 
"  Conservative"  denote  in  reality  much  less  than  might  be  supposed. 
During  the  generation  which  began  with  the  Reform  Act  of  1832 
the  Liberals,  indeed,  extended  the  franchise  to  the  middle  classes, 
reformed  the  poor  law,  overhauled  the  criminal  law,  introduced  a  new 
and  more  satisfactory  scheme  of  municipal  administration,  instituted 
public  provision  for  elementary  education,  enacted  statutes  to  safe- 
guard the  public  health,  removed  the  disabilities  of  dissenters,  and 
assisted  in  the  overthrow  of  the  protective  system.  But  if  the  Con- 
servatives of  the  period  1830-1870  played,  in  general,  the  role  implied 
by  their  party  designation,  their  attitude  none  the  less  was  by  no  means 
always  that  of  obstructionists,  and  in  the  days  of  the  Disraelian 
leadership  they  became  scarcely  less  a  party  of  reform  than  were  their 
opponents.  Beginning  with  the  Reform  Act  of  1867,  a  long  list  of 
progressive  and  even  revolutionizing  measures  must  be  credited  to 
them,  and  in  late  years  they  and  the  Liberals  have  vied  in  advocating 
old  age  pensions,  factory  legislation,  accident  insurance,  housing  laws, 
and  other  sorts  of  advanced  and  remedial  governmental  action.  The 
differences  which  separate  the  two  parties  are  not  so  much  those  of 

1  A  recent  and  important  work  on  party  history  is  F.  H.  O'Donnell,  A  History  of 
the  Irish  Parliamentary  Party,  2  vols.  (London,  1910).  See  Earl  of  Crewe,  Ire- 
land and  the  Liberal  Party,  in  New  Liberal  Review,  June,  1901;  E.  Porritt,  Ire- 
land's Representation  in  Parliament,  in  North  American  Review,  Aug.,  1905;  J.  E. 
Barker,  The  Parliamentary  Position  of  the  Irish  Party,  in  Nineteenth  Century, 
Feb.,  1910;  and  P.  Sheehan,  William  O'Brien  and  the  Irish  Centre  Party,  in  Fort- 
nightly Review,  Dec.,  1910. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  163 

principle  or  of  political  dogma  as  those  of  policy  respecting  immediate 
and  particular  measures,  and  especially  those  of  attitude  toward  cer- 
tain important  organizations  and  interests.  The  Liberals  assert  them- 
selves to  be  more  trustful  of  the  people  and  more  concerned  about  the 
popular  welfare,  but  the  Conservatives  enter  a  denial  which  possesses 
plausibility.  It  is  probably  true  that  the  Liberals  have  fostered  peace 
and  economy  with  more  resoluteness  than  have  their  rivals,  yet  so 
far  as  expenditures  go  the  Liberal  administration  to-day  is  laying  out 
more  money  than  was  ever  laid  out  by  a  Conservative  government 
in  time  of  peace.  The  Liberals  are  seemingly  more  regardful  of  the 
interests  of  Scotland,  Wales,  and  Ireland,  but  the  difference  is  not 
so  large  as  is  sometimes  supposed. 

170.  Present-day  Issues. — Aside  from  the  tariff  question  (and  the 
Conservatives  are  far  from  united  upon  the  Chamberlain  programme), 
the  principal  issues  which  separate  the  two  leading  parties  to-day 
are  those  which  arise  from  the  Conservative  attitude  of  friendliness 
toward  the  House  of  Lords,  the  Established  Church,  the  landowners, 
and  the  publicans.  Most  of  the  political  contests  of  recent  years 
have  been  waged  upon  questions  pertaining  to  the  constitution  of  the 
upper  chamber,  denominational  control  of  education,  disestablishment, 
the  taxation  of  land,  and  the  regulation  of  the  liquor  traffic,  and  in  all 
of  these  matters  the  Liberals  have  been  insisting  upon  changes  which 
their  opponents  either  disapprove  entirely  or  desire  to  confine  within 
narrower  bounds  than  those  proposed.  In  the  carrying  through  of 
the  Parliament  Bill  of  1911,  providing  a  means  by  which  measures 
may  be  enacted  into  law  over  the  protest  of  the  Conservative  majority 
in  the  Lords,  the  Liberals  achieved  their  greatest  triumph  since  1832. 
The  party  stands  committed  to-day  to  a  large  number  of  far-reaching 
projects,  including  the  extension  of  social  insurance,  the  revision  of 
the  electoral  system,  the  establishment  of  Home  Rule,  and,  ultimately, 
a  reconstitution  of  the  second  chamber  as  promised  in  the  preamble 
of  the  Parliament  Act.  At  the  date  of  writing  (October,  1912)  there 
are  pending  in  Parliament  a  momentous  measure  for  the  granting  of 
Home  Rule  to  Ireland *  and  another  for  the  overhauling  of  the  electoral 
system,2  an  important  bill  for  the  disestablishment  of  the  Church  in 
Wales,  a  measure  virtually  annulling  the  principle  involved  in  the 
Osborne  Decision,3  and  several  minor  Government  proposals.  The 
recent  victories  of  the  Liberals  have  been  won  with  the  aid  of  Labor 

1 W.  J.  Laprade,  The  Present  Status  of  the  Home  Rule  Question,  in  American 
Political  Science  Review,  Nov.,  1912. 
1  See  p.  90. 
'  See  p.  127. 


164  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  Irish  Nationalist  votes,  and  the  concessions  which  have  been,  and 
are  being,  made  to  the  interests  of  these  auxiliary  parties  may  be  ex- 
pected to  affect  profoundly  the  course  of  legislation  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  Liberal  ascendancy.1  There  are,  it  may  be  said,  in- 
dications that  the  Liberals  possess  less  strength  throughout  the 
country  than  they  exhibited  during  the  critical  years  1910-1911. 
At  thirty-eight  by-elections  contested  by  the  Unionists  since  Decem- 
ber, 1910,  the  Liberals  have  suffered  a  net  loss  of  eight  seats;  and  one 
of  the  contests  lost  was  that  in  Midlothian,  long  the  constituency 
represented  by  Gladstone,  which  returned,  in  September,  1912,  a 
Conservative  member  for  the  first  time  in  thirty-eight  years.  There 
is  a  tradition  that  when  a  Liberal  government  is  defeated  in  Mid- 
lothian the  end  of  that  government  is  not  far  distant.  Prophecy 
in  such  matters,  however,  is  futile.  Meanwhile  the  Unionists  con- 
tinue to  be  divided  upon  the  tariff,  but  in  the  main  they  are  united 
in  opposition  to  the  overturning  of  the  ancient  constitutional  system, 
although  they  no  longer  generally  oppose  a  moderate  reform  of  the 
House  of  Lords.  In  a  speech  delivered  at  Leeds,  November  16,  1911, 
the  new  parliamentary  leader  of  the  party,  Mr.  Bonar  Law,2  enumerated 
as  the  immediate  Unionist  purposes  (i)  to  oppose  the  Government's 
Welsh  Disestablishment  scheme,  (2)  to  resist  Home  Rule,  (3)  to 
labor  for  tariff  reform  as  the  only  practicable  means  of  solving  the 
problem  of  unemployment,  and  (4)  to  defend  at  all  costs  the  unity 
of  the  Empire. 

171.  Party  Composition. — Both  of  the  great  parties  as  constituted 
to-day  possess  substantial  strength  in  all  portions  of  the  kingdom 
save  Ireland,  the  Liberals  being  in  the  preponderance  in  Scotland, 
Wales,  and  northern  England,  and  the  Conservatives  in  the  south  and 
southwest.  Within  the  Conservative  ranks  are  found  much  the  greater 
portion  of  the  people  of  title,  wealth,  and  social  position;  nearly  all 
of  the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church,  and  some  of  the  Dissenters; 
a  majority  of  the  graduates  of  the  universities3  and  of  members  of 
the  bar;  most  of  the  prosperous  merchants,  manufacturers,  and  finan- 
ciers; a  majority  of  clerks  and  approximately  half  of  the  tradesmen 
and  shopkeepers;  and  a  very  considerable  mass,  though  not  in  these 
days  half,  of  the  workingmen.  During  the  second  half  of  the  nine- 

1 H.  Seton-Karr,  The  Radical  Party  and  Social  Reform,  in  Nineteenth  Century, 
Dec.,  1910. 

2  Mr.  Law  was  chosen  Opposition  leader  in  the  Commons  November  13,  1911, 
upon  the  unexpected  retirement  of  Mr.  Balfour  from  that  position. 

8  At  the  election  of  1906,  21,505  of  the  25,771  votes  recorded  in  the  university 
constituencies  were  cast  for  Unionist  candidates.  Since  1885  not  a  Liberal  member 
has  been  returned  from  any  one  of  the  universities. 


POLITICAL  PARTIES  165 

teenth  century  the  well-to-do  and  aristocratic  Whig  element  in  the 
Liberal  party  was  drawn  over,  in  the  main,  to  the  ranks  of  the  Con- 
servatives,1 and  to  this  day  the  Liberal  party  contains  but  a  small 
proportion  of  the  rank  and  wealth  of  the  kingdom.  It  is  pre-eminently 
an  organization  of  the  middle  and  popular  classes. 

172.  The   Independent  Labor  Party. — The  Labor  party  of  the 
present  day  is  the  product  largely  of  the  twin  agencies  of  socialism  and 
trade-unionism.    As  early  as  1868  two  persons  sought  seats  in  Parlia- 
ment as  representatives  of  labor,  and  at  the  elections  of  1874  there  were 
no  fewer  than  thirteen  labor  candidates,  two  of  whom  were  successful. 
Great  industrial  upheavals  of  succeeding  years,  notably  the  strike  of 
the  London  dock  laborers  in  1889,  together  with  the  rise  of  new  or- 
ganizations composed  of  unskilled  labor  and  pronouncedly  infected 
with  socialism,  created  demand  for  the  interference  of  the  state  for  the 
improvement  of  labor  conditions  and  led  eventually  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Independent  Labor  Party  in  1893.    The  aim  of  this  party 
as  set  forth  in  its  constitution  and  rules  is  essentially  socialistic, 
namely,  "the  establishment  of  collective  ownership  and  control  of 
the  means  of  production,  distribution,  and  exchange  ";  and  the  work- 
ing programme  as  originally  announced  includes  (i)  a  universal  eight- 
hour  day,  (2)  the  abolition  of  over-time,  piece-work,  and  the  employ- 
ment of  children  under  fourteen,  (3)  state  provision  for  the  ill,  the 
invalid,  and  the  aged,  (4)  free,  non-sectarian  education  of  all  grades, 
(5)  the  extinction  by  taxation  of  unearned  incomes,  and  (6)  universal 
disarmament.    To  this  programme  has  been  added  woman's  suffrage, 
a  second  ballot  in  parliamentary  elections,  municipal  control  of  the 
liquor  traffic  and  of  hospitals,  and  a  number  of  other  proposed  innova- 
tions.   At  the  elections  of  1895  the  party  named  twenty-eight  candi- 
dates, but  no  one  of  them  was  successful  and  Keir  Hardie,  founder  and 
president,  lost  the  seat  which  he  had  occupied  since  1892.    In  1900  it 
attained,  in  the  re-election  of  Hardie,  its  first  parliamentary  victory, 
and  in  1906  when  the  tide  of  radicalism  was  running  high  seven  of  its 
candidates  and  sixteen  of  its  members  were  elected  to  the  House  of 
Commons. 

173.  The   Labor  Party  To-day. — The  Independent  Labor  Party 
has  been  throughout  its  history  avowedly  socialistic.    It  has  sought 
and  obtained  the  adherence  of  thousands  of  laboring  men,  some  of 
whom  are,  and  some  of  whom  are  not,  socialists.    But  its  character  is 
too  radical  to  attract  the  mass  of  trade-union  members  and  alongside 
it  there  has  grown  up  a  larger  and  broader  organization  known  sim- 
ply as  the  Labor  Party.    A  trade-union  congress  held  at  London  in 

1  The  defection  was  largest  at  the  time  of  the  Liberal  Unionist  secession  in  1886. 


166  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

September,  1899,  caused  to  be  brought  together  an  assemblage  of 
representatives  of  all  co-operative,  trade-union,  socialist,  and  working- 
class  organizations  which  were  willing  to  share  in  an  effort  to  increase 
the  representation  of  labor  in  Parliament.  This  body  held  its  first  meet- 
ing at  London  in  February,  1900,  and  an  organization  was  formed  in 
which  the  ruling  forces  were  the  politically  inclined  but  non-socialistic 
trade-unions.  The  object  of  the  affiliation  was  asserted  to  be  "to 
establish  a  distinct  labor  group  in  Parliament,  who  shall  have  their 
own  whips,  and  agree  upon  their  own  policy,  which  must  embrace  a 
readiness  to  co-operate  with  any  party  which  for  the  time  being  may 
be  engaged  in  promoting  legislation  in  the  direct  interest  of  labor." 
The  growth  of  the  organization  was  rapid,  and  in  1906  the  name  which 
had  been  employed,  i.  e.,  Labor  Representation  Committee,  gave 
place  to  that  of  Labor  Party.  At  the  elections  of  1906  twenty-nine  of 
the  fifty-one  candidates  of  this  party  were  chosen  to  the  House  of 
Commons.  Taking  into  account  eleven  members  connected  with 
miners'  organizations  and  fourteen  others  who  were  Independent 
Laborites  or  Liberal  Laborites  ("Lib.-Labs."),  the  parliament  chosen 
in  1906  contained  a  labor  contingent  aggregating  fifty-four  members. 
Since  1908  there  has  been  in  progress  a  consolidation  of  the  labor  forces 
represented  at  Westminster  and,  although  at  the  elections  of  1910 
some  seats  were  lost,  there  are  in  the  House  of  Commons  to-day  forty- 
two  labor  representatives.  The  entire  group  is  independent  of,  but 
friendly  toward,  the  Liberal  Government;  and  since  the  Liberals 
stand  in  constant  need  of  Labor  support,  its  power  in  legislation  is 
altogether  disproportioned  to  its  numbers.1 

*Two  satisfactory  volumes  on  the  political  activities  of  labor  in  the  United 
Kingdom  are  C.  Noel,  The  Labour  Party,  What  it  is,  and  What  it  wants  (London, 
1906)  and  A.  W.  Humphrey,  A  History  of  Labor  Representation  (London,  1912). 
See  E.  Porritt,  The  British  Socialist  Labor  Party,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
Sept.,  1908,  and  The  British  Labor  Party  in  1910,  ibid.,  June.  1910;  M.  Alfassa, 
Le  parti  ouvrier  au  parlement  anglais,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Jan.  15, 
1908;  H.  W.  Horwill,  The  Payment  of  Labor  Representatives  in  Parliament,  in 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  June,  1910;  J.  K.  Hardie,  The  Labor  Movement,  in 
Nineteenth  Century,  Dec.,  1906;  and  M.  Hewlett,  The  Labor  Party  of  the  Future, 
in  Fortnightly  Review,  Feb.,  1910.  Two  books  of  value  on  English  socialism  are 
J.  E.  Barker,  British  Socialism;  an  Examination  of  its  Doctrines,  Policy,  Aims,  and 
Practical  Proposals  (London,  1908)  and  H.  O.  Arnold-Foster,  English  Socialism 
of  To-day  (London,  1908). 


CHAPTER 
JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

I.  ENGLISH  LAW 

The  preponderating  principle  in  the  governmental  system  of  Great 
Britain  to-day  is  the  rule  of  law,  which  means,  in  effect,  two  things : 
first,  that  no  man  may  be  deprived  of  liberty  or  property  save  on  ac- 
count of  a  breach  of  the  law  proved  in  one  of  the  ordinary  courts  and, 
second,  that  no  man  stands  above  the  law  and  that  for  every  violation 
of  the  law  some  reparation  may  be  obtained,  whatever  the  station 
or  character  of  the  offender.1  Upon  these  fundamental  guarantees 
has  been  erected  through  the  centuries  a  fabric  of  personal  liberty 
which  lends  the  British  nation  one  of  its  principal  distinctions.  The 
influence  of  English  concepts  and  forms  of  law  has  counted  for  much, 
furthermore,  in  the  shaping  of  continental  legal -systems;  and  outside 
of  Europe,  and  especially  in  the  English-speaking  countries  of  both 
hemispheres,  the  law  of  England  has  been,  within  modern  times,  much 
the  most  universal  and  decisive  formative  agency  in  legal  development. 

174.  Statute  Law  and  Common  Law. — From  at  least  the  seven- 
teenth century  law  has  been  conceived  of  in  England  as  exclusively  the 
body  of  rules,  of  whatsoever  origin  or  nature,  which  can  be  enforced 
in  the  regular  courts.  As  it  has  taken  form,  it  falls  into  two  principal 
categories.  The  one  is  statute  law,  the  other  is  the  Common  Law. 
Statute  law  consists  of  specific  acts  of  Parliament,  supplemented  by 
by-laws,  rules,  and  regulations  made  under  parliamentary  sanction 
by  public  officials  and  bodies.  Chronologically,  it  begins  in  1235,  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  III. ;  and  inasmuch  as  it  is  amended  and  amplified 
at  substantially  every  parliamentary  session,  the  bulk  of  it  has  come 
to  be  enormous.  The  more  comprehensive  and  fundamental  part  of 
English  law,  however,  is,  and  has  always  been,  the  Common  Law. 
The  Common  Law  is  a  product  of  growth  rather  than  of  legislation. 
No  definite  time  can  be  assigned  for  its  beginning,  for  at  as  early  a 

1  The  only  exception  to  this  general  proposition  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  the 
sovereign  may  not  be  sued  or  prosecuted  in  the  ordinary  courts;  but  this  immunity, 
as  matters  now  stand,  is  of  no  practical  consequence. 

167 


i68  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

period  as  there  are  reports  of  judicial  decisions  the  existence  of  a 
body  of  law  not  emanating  from  law-makers  was  taken  for  granted. 
Long  before  the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages  the  essentials  of  the  Common 
Law  had  acquired  not  only  unquestioned  sanction  but  also  thorough- 
going coherence  and  uniformity.  Despite  the  greatly  increased  legisla- 
tive activity  of  modern  times,  it  still  may  be  said  that  the  rules  of  the 
Common  Law  are  fundamental,  the  laws  of  Parliament  but  incidental. 
Statutes  regularly  assume  the  principles  of  the  Common  Law,  and  are 
largely,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  "  the  addenda  and  errata"  of  this  law, 
incomplete  and  meaningless  save  in  co-ordination  with  the  legal  order 
by  which  they  are  supported  and  enveloped.1  Thus  no  act  of  Parlia- 
ment enjoins  in  general  terms  that  a  man  shall  pay  his  debts,  or  ful- 
fill his  contracts,  or  pay  damages  for  trespass  or  slander.  Statutes 
define  the  modes  in  accordance  with  which  these  obligations  shall  be 
met,  but  the  obligations  themselves  are  derived  entirely  from  the 
Common  Law.  It  is,  however,  a  fixed  rule  that  where  statutes  fall 
in  conflict  with  the  Common  Law  it  is  the  statutes  that  prevail.  The 
limitless  competence  of  Parliament  involves  the  power  to  set  aside  or 
to  modify  at  any  time  any  Common  Law  principle  or  practice,  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  development  of  the  Common  Law  can  repeal 
an  act  of  Parliament. 

176.  The  Form  of  the  Law. — Statute  law  takes  invariably,  of 
course,  written  form.  The  acts  of  Parliament  are  to  be  found  in  im- 
posing printed  collections,  to  which  a  substantial  volume  is  added 
every  year.  Of  the  Common  Law,  however,  there  is  no  single  or 
authoritative  text.  The  Common  Law  grew  up  originally  as  un- 
written law,  and  in  a  large  measure  it  preserves  still  that  character. 
The  sources,  however,  from  which  knowledge  of  it  must  be  drawn  are 
mainly  in  writing  or  in  print.  The  most  important  are  (i)  the  deci- 
sions of  the  judges  of  the  English  courts  (reported  anonymously  in 
Year  Books  from  the  reign  of  Edward  I.  to  that  of  Henry  VIII.,  and 
thereafter  by  lawyers  reporting  under  then:  own  names)  which  from  at 
least  the  sixteenth  century  acquired  weight  as  precedents  and  are 
nowadays  all  but  absolutely  decisive  in  analogous  cases;  (2)  the  deci- 
sions of  courts  of  other  countries  in  which  there  is  administered  a  law 
derived  from  the  English,  such  decisions  being,  of  course,  not  binding, 
yet  highly  influential;  and  (3)  certain  "books  of  authority"  written 

1  W.  M.  Geldart,  Elements  of  English  Law  (London  and  New  York,  1912),  9. 
As  this  author  further  remarks,  "if  all  the  statutes  of  the  realm  were  repealed,  we 
should  have  a  system  of  law,  though,  it  may  be,  an  unworkable  one;  if  we  could 
imagine  the  Common  Law  swept  away  and  the  Statute  Law  preserved,  we  should 
have  only  disjointed  rules  torn  from  their  context,  and  no  provision  at  all  for  many 
of  the  most  important  relations  of  life." 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  169 

by  learned  lawyers  of  earlier  times,  such  as  Coke's  seventeenth- 
century  Commentary  on  Littleton's  Tenures  and  Foster's  eighteenth- 
century  treatise  on  Crown  Law.  Some  small  branches  of  the  Common 
Law  have,  indeed,  been  codified  in  the  form  of  statutes,  among  them 
the  law  of  partnership,  that  of  sales,  and  that  of  bills  of  exchange. 
176.  The  Rules  of  Equity.— There  is  one  other  body  of  English 
law  which  requires  mention,  namely,  the  rules  of  equity.  These  rules 
had  their  origin  in  the  administration  of  an  extraordinary  sort  of  jus- 
tice by  the  king's  chancellor  in  mediaeval  times,  a  practice  which  arose 
from  the  sheer  necessity  of  redressing  grievances  occasioned  by  the 
omissions  or  commissions  of  the  regularly  constituted  tribunals. 
Interference  on  the  part  of  the  chancellor,  which  started  as  a  matter 
of  special  favor  in  unusual  cases,  became  gradually  an  established 
practice,  and,  contrary  to  the  original  intention,  there  was  brought 
into  existence  a  body  of  definite  and  separate  rules  of  equity  which  by 
the  seventeenth  century  acquired  systematic  character,  and  likewise 
a  court  of  chancery  in  which  these  rules  were  at  all  times  enforceable. 
Reports  of  equity  cases  became  continuous,  and  lawyers  of  eminence 
began  to  specialize  in  equity  procedure.  The  rules  of  equity  thus 
developed  partake  largely  of  the  nature  of  the  Common  Law,  of  which, 
indeed,  they  are  to  be  considered,  in  effect,  a  supplement  or  appendix; 
and  practically,  though  not  theoretically,  they  prevail  as  against  any 
provisions  of  the  ordinary  Common  Law  with  which  they  may  be 
inconsistent.  Their  general  purpose  is  to  afford  means  of  safeguarding 
rights  which  exist  in  morals,  but  which  the  Common  Law  courts  can- 
not or  will  not  protect.  Until  1875  thev  were  administered  by  tribunals 
separate  from  the  ordinary  courts.  Nowadays  they  are  not  separately 
administered,  but  they  preserve,  none  the  less,  their  highly  distinctive 
character.1 

:Two  monumental  works  dealing  with  the  earlier  portions  of  English  legal 
development  are  F.  Pollock  and  F.  W.  Maitland,  History  of  English  Law  to  the 
Time  of  Edward  I.,  2  vols.  (Cambridge,  1898)  and  W.  S.  Holdsworth,  History  of 
English  Law,  3  vols.  (London,  1903-1909).  The  first  volume  of  Holdsworth  contains 
a  history  of  English  courts  from  the  Norman  Conquest  to  the  present  day;  the 
other  volumes  deal  exhaustively  with  the  growth  of  the  law  itself.  Books  of  value 
include  H.  Brunner,  The  Sources  of  the  Law  of  England,  trans,  by  W.  Hastie 
(Edinburgh,  1888);  R.  K.  Wilson,  History  of  Modern  English  Law  (London,  1875). 
J.  F.  Stephen,  History  of  the  Criminal  Law  of  England,  3  vols.  (London,  1883); 
ibid.,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  4  vols.  (London,  1908);  O.  W. 
Holmes,  The  Common  Law  (Boston,  1881);  and  H.  Broom  and  E.  A.  Hadley, 
Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  4  vols.  (London,  1869).  A  recent  treatise 
by  a  German  authority  is  J.  Hatschek,  Englisches  Staatsrecht  mit  Berticks- 
ichtigung  der  fttr  Schottland  und  Irland  geltenden  Sonderheiten  (Tubingen, 
1905).  An  incisive  work  is  A.  V.  Dicey,  Law  and  Public  Opinion  in  England  in 


170  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

II.  THE  INFERIOR  COURTS 

177.  The  Hierarchy  of  Tribunals.— In  the  majority  of  continental 
countries  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  ordinary  law  and  what  is 
known  as  administrative  law,  i.  e.,  the  body  of  rules  governing  the 
conduct  of  public  officials  and,  more  particularly,  the  adjudication 
of  disputes  between  these  officials,  in  their  public  capacity,  and  private 
citizens.  This  differentiation  of  law  entails  customarily  the  mainte- 
nance of  administrative  courts,  separate  from  the  ordinary  tribunals, 
in  which  administrative  cases  are  heard  and  decided.  In  Great 
Britain,  however,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  administrative  law,  and 
in  consequence  there  is  no  need  of  administrative  courts.  Public  of- 
ficials, from  the  ministers  downwards,  are  amenable  to  the  processes 
of  the  ordinary  tribunals  precisely  as  are  all  other  classes  of  people. 
Simpler,  therefore,  at  this  point  than  the  continental  systems  of  courts, 
the  English  system  is  none  the  less  one  of  the  most  elaborate  and 
complicated  in  the  world.  There  are  features  of  it  which  in  origin  are 
mediaeval,  others  which  owe  their  existence  to  the  reforming  enter- 
prises of  the  earlier  nineteenth  century,  and  still  others  which  have  a 
history  covering  hardly  more  than  a  generation.  Reduced  to  its  sim- 
plest aspect,  the  system  comprises,  at  the  bottom,  three  principal 
varieties  of  tribunals — the  county  courts  for  civil  cases  and  the  courts 
of  the  justices  of  the  peace  and  the  borough  criminal  courts  for  criminal 
cases — and,  at  the  top,  a  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  in  two  branches, 
i.  e.,  the  High  Court  of  Justice  and  the  Court  of  Appeal,  in  addition 
to  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  the  House  of  Lords, 
and  a  number  of  other  occasional  or  special  central  tribunals.1 

the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1905).  A  good  single  volume  history  of  the  law 
is  E.  Jenks,  Short  History  of  the  English  Law  (Boston,  1912).  A  satisfactory  in- 
troduction to  both  the  history  and  the  character  of  the  law  is  W.  M.  Geldart,  Ele- 
ments of  English  Law  (London  and  New  York,  1912).  Another  is  F.  W.  Mait- 
land,  Outlines  of  English  Legal  History,  in  Collected  Papers  (Cambridge,  1911), 
II.,  417-496.  Other  excellent  introductory  treatises  are  Maitland,  Lectures  on 
Equity  (Cambridge,  1909),  and  C.  S.  Kenny,  Outlines  of  Criminal  Law  (New  York, 
1907).  Maitland's  article  on  English  Law  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  IX., 
600-607,  is  valuable  for  its  brevity  and  its  clearness.  On  the  English  conception 
of  law  and  the  effects  thereof  see  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  Chaps.  61- 
62.  The  character  and  forms  of  the  statute  law  are  sketched  to  advantage  in  C.  P. 
Ilbert,  Legislative  Methods  and  Forms  (Oxford,  1901),  1-76. 

1  It  should  be  noted  that  the  judicial  system  herein  to  be  described  is  that  of 
England  alone.  The  systems  existing  in  Scotland  and  Ireland  are  at  many  points 
unlike  it.  In  Scotland  the  distinction  between  law  and  equity  is  virtually  unknown 
and  the  Common  Law  of  England  does  not  prevail.  In  Ireland,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Common  Law  is  operative  and  judicial  organization  and  procedure  are  roughly 
similar  to  the  English. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  171 

178.  The  County  Courts.— The  county  courts  of  the  present  day 
were  established  under  provision  of  the  County  Court  Act  of  1846, 
and  it  is  to  be  observed  that  they  are  in  no  manner  connected  with 
the  historic  courts  of  the  shire  or  county.    They  are  known  as  county 
courts,  but  in  point  of  fact  the  area  of  their  jurisdiction  is  a  district 
which  not  only  is  smaller  than  the  county  but  bears  no  relation  to  it. 
There  are  in  England  at  present  some  five  hundred  of  these  districts, 
the  object  of  the  arrangement  being  to  bring  the  agencies  of  justice 
close  to  the  people  and  so  to  reduce  the  costs  and  delays  incident  to 
litigation.1    The  volume  of  business  to  be  transacted  in  a  district  is 
insufficient  to  occupy  a  judge  during  any  considerable  portion  of  his 
working  time,  and  the  districts  are  grouped  in  some  fifty  circuits, 
to  each  of  which  is  assigned  by  the  Lord  Chancellor  one  judge  who 
holds  court  in  each  district  of  his  circuit  approximately  once  a  month. 
The  judge  sits  almost  invariably  without  a  jury,  although  unless  the 
amount  involved  is  very  small  either  party  to  a  suit  is  privileged  to 
request  the  employment  of  a  jury  of  eight  persons.    The  jurisdiction 
of  the  county  courts  has  been  enlarged  a  number  of  times,  notably  by 
a  statute  of  1905,  but  it  is  still  not  as  extended  as  many  people  believe 
it  should  be.    In  a  few  matters,  such  as  certain  claims  of  workingmen 
for  injuries,  this  jurisdiction  is  exclusive,  but  at  most  points  it  is  con- 
current with  the  jurisdiction  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice,  and  Com- 
mon Law,  equity,  bankruptcy,  probate,  and  admiralty  cases  may  be 
brought,  at  the  discretion  of  the  plaintiff,  in  either  tribunal,  subject 
to  the  restriction  that  the  county  court  may  not  assume  jurisdiction 
when  the  value  in  dispute  exceeds  a  certain  amount,  commonly  £100 
in  Common  Law  cases  and  £500  in  cases  of  equity.    On  all  points  of 
law  appeal  lies  to  the  High  Court;  but  appeals  are  rare.2 

179.  The  Justices  of  the  Peace. — The  county  courts  exist  for  the  ad- 
judication of  civil  cases  exclusively.     The  corresponding  local  tribunals 
for  the  administration  of  criminal  justice  are  the  courts  of  the  justices  of 
the  peace,  and,  in  certain  towns,  other  courts  to  which  the  powers  of  the 
justices  have  been  transferred.    The  county  is  normally  the  area  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  justices,  and  with  a  few  exceptions  every  county  has  a 
separate  "commission  of  the  peace,"8  consisting  of  all  the  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Judicature,  all  members  of  the  Privy  Council,  and  such 

1  Prior  to  1846  justice  in  civil  cases  could  be  obtained  only  at  Westminster,  or, 
in  any  event,  by  means  of  an  action  instituted  at  Westminster  and  tried  on  circuit. 

2  A  few  inferior  civil  courts  of  special  character  have  survived  from  earlier  days, 
but  they  are  anomalous  and  do  not  call  for  comment.    It  may  be  added  that  the 
judges  of  the  county  courts  receive  a  salary  of  £1,500. 

'The  three  ridings  of  Yorkshire  and  the  three  divisions  of  Lincolnshire  have 
separate  commissions,  and  there  are  a  few  "liberties"  or  excepted  jurisdictions. 


172  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

other  persons  as  the  crown,  acting  through  the  Lord  Chancellor,  may 
designate  as  justices  on  recommendation  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant  or  in- 
dependently.1 The  Lord  Lieutenant  is  chief  of  the  justices  and  keeper 
of  the  county  records.  In  many  counties  the  list  of  justices  contains 
three  or  four  hundred  names  (in  Lancashire  eight  hundred),  but  it  is 
to  be  observed  that  some  of  the  appointees  do  not  take  the  oaths  re- 
quired to  qualify  them  for  magisterial  service  and  that  the  actual  work 
is  performed  in  each  county  by  a  comparatively  small  number  of  per- 
sons. The  justices  serve  without  pay,  but  the  office  carries  much 
local  distinction  and  appointments  are  widely  coveted.  Until  1906  a 
property  qualification  2  was  required  of  all  save  certain  classes  of  ap- 
pointees whose  station  was  deemed  a  sufficient  guarantee  of  fitness, 
but  in  the  year  mentioned  the  Liberals  brought  about  its  abolition. 
The  justices  are  drawn  still,  in  large  part,  from  the  class  of  country 
gentlemen.  They  are  removable  by  the  crown,  but  tenure  is  almost 
invariably  for  life. 

180.  Powers  of  the  Justices. — At  one  time  the  functions  of  the 
justices  of  the  peace  were  administrative  as  well  as  judicial,  but  by 
the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  functions  of  an  administrative 
nature  were  transferred  all  but  completely  to  the  newly  created  county 
councils,3  and  the  justices  to-day  are  judicial  officials  almost  exclu- 
sively. Their  judicial  labors  may  be  performed  under  three  condi- 
tions, namely,  by  justices  acting  singly,  by  two  or  more  justices  meet- 
ing in  petty  sessions,  and  by  the  whole  body  of  justices  of  the  county 
assembled  in  quarter  sessions.  The  powers  of  a  justice  acting  alone 
are  those  largely  of  the  ordinary  police  magistrate.  He  may  order 
the  arrest  of  offenders;  he  conducts  preliminary  examinations  and  re- 
leases the  accused  or  commits  them  for  indictment  by  a  grand  jury; 
and  he  hears  cases  involving  unimportant  breaches  of  the  law  and  im- 
poses small  penalties.  The  justices  sitting  by  twos  in  petty  sessions 
exercise  an  extensive  summary  jurisdiction  over  offenses  specified 
minutely  by  the  law.4  They  sit  without  a  jury,  but  appeal  can  be 
carried,  as  a  rule,  to  the  justices  at  quarter  sessions  and  even,  on  ques- 
tions of  law,  to  the  High  Court.  Four  times  a  year  all  of  the  justices 
of  the  county,  or  such  of  them  as  care  to  be  present,  meet  in  quarter 
sessions.  The  jurisdiction  here  exercised  is  in  part  appellate  and  in 
part  original.  The  court  tries,  without  a  jury,  all  cases  appealed  from 

1 A  royal  commission  created  to  consider  the  mode  of  appointment  reported  in 
1910;  but  no  important  modification  of  the  existing  practice  was  suggested. 

2  Ownership  of  land,  or  occupation  of  a  house,  worth  £100  a  year. 

3  See  p.  183. 

4  Chiefly  by  the  Summary  Jurisdiction  Act  of  1879. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  173 

petty  sessions,  and  it  tries,  with  a  jury,  and  after  indictment  by  a 
grand  jury,  all  cases  involving  offenses  not  of  a  minor  nature,  save 
that  the  most  serious  offenses,  punishable  in  most  instances  with  death 
or  life  imprisonment,  are  reserved  for  trial  in  the  assizes,  i.  e.,  by  judges 
from  Westminster  travelling  on  circuit.  By  means  of  the  writs  of 
mandamus  and  certiorari  the  actual  proceedings  of  quarter  sessions 
are  controlled  not  infrequently  by  the  superior  courts.1 

181.  Special  Borough  Arrangements. — The  smaller  boroughs,  having 
no  separate  commissions  of  the  peace,  are  for  purposes  of  criminal  justice 
merely  portions  of  the  counties  in  which  they  lie.    In  many  of  the  larger 
ones,  however,  there  have  been  set  up  juolicial  arragements  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  borough  is  withdrawn  from  the  county  jurisdiction. 
Some  have  a  commission  of  the  peace  but  no  quarter  sessions.    In  them 
the  justices  can  exercise,  in  addition  to  the  usual  functions  of  police 
magistrate,  only  a  summary  jurisdiction.     Others  have  a  court  of 
quarter  sessions;  though  it  is  to  be  observed  that  where  this  tribunal  ex- 
ists its  work  is  performed  actually  by  the  recorder,  a  barrister  appointed 
by  the  crown  and  paid  by  the  borough. 

III.  THE  HIGHER  COURTS 

182.  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature:  the  High  Court. — The  higher 
tribunals  within  the  judicial  system  were  once  numerous  and  extremely 
complex.    As  reconstituted,  however,  by  the  great  Judicature  Act  of 
*873,  which,  together  with  an  Amending  Act,  took  effect  near  the  close 
of  1875,  they  have  acquired  a  considerable  degree  of  orderliness  and 
even  of  simplicity.    The  measure  of  1873  abolished  the  appellate  juris- 
diction of  the  House  of  Lords,  but  the  Amending  Act  three  years  later 
rescinded  this  modification,  and,  as  has  been  explained  elsewhere,  the 
House  of  Lords  is  still  a  court  of  very  great  importance.2    Aside  from 
the  Lords,  however,  the  higher  courts  of  the  realm — the  Chancery, 
the  three  great  Common  Law  courts,  the  Admiralty,  Probate,  and 
Divorce  courts,  and  the  intermediate  courts  of  appeal  from  these 
tribunals  of  first  instance — were  consolidated  by  the  legislation  of 
1873-1875  to  form  one  grand  organization,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judica- 
ture, which  was  thereupon  cut  into  two  branches,  the  High  Court  of 
Justice  and  the  Court  of  Appeal.    The  High  Court  of  Justice  was 
assigned  a  general  jurisdiction,  civil  and  criminal,  as  a  court  of  first 

1  Medley,  Manual  of  English  Constitutional  History,  392-400.     An  excellent 
monograph  is  C.  A.  Beard,  The  Office  of  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  England,  in  Co- 
lumbia University  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and  Public  Law,  XX.,  No.  i. 
(New  York,  1904). 

2  See  p.  130. 


174  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

instance  and  also  as  a  court  of  appeal  from  inferior  courts.  Its  juris- 
diction represents  essentially  the  aggregate  of  jurisdictions  of  the 
tribunals  which  it  superseded,  and  the  various  divisions  into  which  it 
falls  perpetuate  in  a  measure  the  names  and  functions  of  those  tribunals. 
There  were  originally  five  of  these  divisions.  To-day  there  are  three: 
Chancery,  King's  Bench  (with  which  the  Common  Pleas  and  Exchequer 
divisions  were  united  by  order  in  council  of  December  16,  1880), 
and  Probate,  Divorce,  and  Admiralty.  Any  High  Court  judge  may  sit 
in  a  tribunal  belonging  to  any  one  of  these  divisions.  The  Lord  Chan- 
cellor presides  over  the  Chancery  division,  the  Chief  Justice  over  the 
King's  Bench.  The  number  of  judges  is  variable.  The  Chancery 
division  contains  at  present  six,  the  King's  Bench  fifteen,  and  the 
Probate,  Divorce,  and  Admiralty  division  but  two.  All  save  the  Chan- 
cellor (who  is  a  cabinet  official,  owing  his  position  to  selection  by  the 
premier)  are  appointed  by  the  crown  upon  advice  of  the  Chancellor, 
and  all  hold  office  during  good  behavior  but  may  be  dismissed  on  ad- 
dresses of  the  two  houses  of  Parliament.  The  judges  of  the  High  Court 
sit  both  singly  and  in  groups.  The  ordinary  trial  of  cases  is  conducted, 
under  a  variety  of  stipulated  conditions,  by  a  single  judge,  either  at 
Westminster  or  on  circuit.  The  judges  who  go  on  circuit  are  taken  as 
a  rule  from  the  King's  Bench  division,  and  when  both  civil  and  criminal 
cases  are  to  be  adjudicated  they  travel  ordinarily  in  pairs,  one  attending 
to  the  civil  and  the  other  to  the  criminal  business.  Judges  sit  also, 
without  juries,  in  divisional  courts,  composed  of  two  or  more  members, 
to  hear  appeals  from  inferior  tribunals,  motions  for  new  trials,  and 
applications  for  writs.  The  High  Court  never  sits  as  a  single  body,  nor 
does  even  the  Chancery  or  the  King's  Bench  division. 

183.  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature :  the  Court  of  Appeals. — The  second 
branch  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  is  the  Court  of  Appeal.  This 
tribunal  is  composed  of  the  Master  of  the  Rolls  and  five  Lords  Justices 
of  Appeal,  all  appointed  by  the  crown  upon  the  advice  of  the  Lord  Chan- 
cellor. The  presidents  of  the  three  divisions  of  the  High  Court  are  also 
members,  but  they  rarely  participate  in  the  work  of  the  court;  and  since 
1891  men  who  have  occupied  the  office  of  Chancellor  are  ex-officio 
members,  although  they  sit  only  if  they  choose  to  comply  with  a  request 
of  the  Chancellor  that  they  do  so.  The  court  performs  its  functions 
regularly  in  two  sections  of  three  members  each,  although  for  some 
matters  the  presence  of  but  two  judges  is  required.  Sittings  are  held 
only  in  London.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  is  exclusively  appellate, 
and  its  business  consists  very  largely  in  the  hearing  of  appeals  in  civil 
cases  carried  from  the  High  Court.  Prior  to  1907  there  was  no  general 
right  of  appeal  in  criminal  cases.  By  the  Criminal  Appeal  Act  of  that 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  175 

year,  however,  there  was  established  a  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal  to 
which  any  person  convicted  may  appeal  on  a  question  of  law  and,  under 
stipulated  conditions,  on  a  question  of  fact  also.  This  tribunal  is 
composed  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  and  eight  judges  of  the  King's 
Bench  appointed  by  him  with  the  assent  of  the  Lord  Chancellor.  It, 
therefore,  has  no  immediate  connection  with  the  Court  of  Appeal. 
184.  The  House  of  Lords  and  the  Judicial  Committee. — Of  superior 
tribunals  there  are  two  others  of  large  importance,  the  House  of  Lords 
and  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council.  The  functions  of 
the  House  of  Lords  as  a  court  of  last  resort  have  been  described  else- 
where.1 By  the  act  of  1876  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  Lords, 
withdrawn  by  the  act  of  1873,  was  restored  and  provision  was  made 
for  the  strengthening  of  the  legal  element  in  the  chamber  by  the  creation 
of  life  peers  to  be  known  as  Lords  of  Appeal  in  Ordinary.  Under  exist- 
ing law  appeal  lies  to  the  Lords  from  any  order  or  judgment  of  the  Court 
of  Appeal  in  England  and  of  all  Scottish  and  Irish  courts  from  which 
appeals  might,  prior  to  1876,  be  carried.  The  Judicial  Committee  of 
the  Privy  Council  was  constituted  in  1833  to  assume  jurisdiction  over 
a  variety  of  cases  formerly  heard  and  decided  nominally  by  the  Council 
as  a  whole.  The  composition  of  the  body  has  been  changed  a  number 
of  times.  The  members  at  present  comprise  the  Lords  of  Appeal  in 
Ordinary,  such  members  of  the  Privy  Council  as  hold  or  have  held  high 
judicial  office,  two  other  Privy  Councillors  designated  at  pleasure  by  the 
crown,  and,  as  a  rule,  one  or  two  paid  members  who  have  held  judicial 
office  in  India  or  the  colonies.  The  membership  is  thus  large,  but  only 
four  members  need  be  present  at  the  hearing  of  a  case,  and  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  the  working  members  of  the  Committee  are  pre- 
dominantly the  four  "law  lords"  who  comprise  also  the  working  judicial 
element  in  the  House  of  Lords.  It  is  the  business  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee to  consider  and  determine  any  matter  that  may  be  referred  to  it 
by  the  crown,  but,  in  the  main,  to  hear  final  appeals  from  the  ecclesias- 
tical courts,  from  courts  in  the  Channel  Islands  and  the  Isle  of  Man, 
from  the  courts  of  the  colonies  and  dependencies,  and  from  English 
courts  established  by  treaty  in  foreign  countries.  Its  decisions  are 
tendered  under  the  guise  of  "advice  to  the  crown"  and,  unlike  the 
decisions  of  the  Lords,  they  must  bear  the  appearance,  at  least  of 
unanimity.2 

1  See  p.  130. 

8  For  brief  descriptions  of  the  English  judicial  system  see  Lowell,  Government  of 
England,  II.,  Chaps.  59-60;  Anson,  Law  and  Custom  of  the  Constitution,  II., 
Pt.  i.,  Chap.  10;  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap.  14;  and  Macy, 
The  English  Constitution,  Chap.  7.  As  is  stated  elsewhere  (p.  169),  the  first  volume 
of  Holds  worth's  History  of  English  Law  contains  an  excellent  history  of  the  English 


176  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


IV.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  TO  THE  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATIONS  ACT,  1835 

185.  Periods  in  Local  Governmental  History. — No  description  of 
a  governmental  system  can  be  adequate  which  does  not  take  into  ac- 
count the  agencies  and  modes  by  which  the  powers  of  government  are 
brought  close  to  the  people,  as  well  as  those  by  which  the  people  in 
greater  or  lesser  measure  regulate  locally  their  own  public  affairs.    More 
especially  is  this  true  in  the  instance  of  a  government  such  as  the  English 
in  which  local  self-control  is  a  fundamental  rather  than  an  incidental 
fact.    The  history  of  local  institutions  in  England  covers  an  enormous 
stretch  of  time,  as  well  as  a  remarkable  breadth  of  public  organization 
and  activity,  and  by  no  means  its  least  important  phases  are  those  which 
have  appeared  in  most  recent  times.    Speaking  broadly,  it  may  be  said 
to  fall  into  four  very  unequal  periods.    The  first,  extending  from  the  set- 
tlement of  the  Saxons  to  the  Norman  Conquest,  was  marked  by  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  distinctive  English  units  of  administration — shire, 
hundred,  and  township — and  by  the  planting  of  the  principle  of  broadly 
popular  local  control.    The  second,  extending  from  the  Conquest  to  the 
fourteenth  century,  was  characterized  by  a  general  increase  of  centraliza- 
tion and  a  corresponding  decrease  of  local  autonomy.     The  third, 
extending  from  the  fourteenth  century  to  the  adoption  of  the  Local 
Government  Act  of  1888,  was  pre-eminently  a  period  of  aristocratic 
control  of  local  affairs,  of  government  by  the  same  squirearchy  which 
prior  to  1832,  if  not  1867,  was  accustomed  to  dominate  Parliament. 
The  last  period,  that  from  1888  to  the  present  time,  has  been  notable 
in  a  special  degree  for  the  democratization  and  systematization  of  local 
governing  arrangements  which  has  taken  place  within  it 

186.  County  and  Parish  before  1832. — The  transformation  by  which 
the  institutions  of  local  government  have  been  brought  to  their  present 
status  paralleled,  and  in  a  large  measure  sprang  from,  the  revolutioniz- 
ing of  Parliament  during  the  course  of  the  nineteenth  century.    Two 
periods  of  change  are  especially  noteworthy,  the  one  following  closely 
the  Reform  Act  of  1832  and  culminating  in  the  adoption  of  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Act  of  1835,  the  other  following  similarly  the  Representa- 

courts.  A  useful  handbook,  though  much  in  need  of  revision,  is  F.  W.  Maitland, 
Justice  and  Police  (London,  1885).  Perhaps  the  best  brief  account  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  English  judicial  system  is  A.  T.  Carter,  History  of  English  Legal  Insti- 
tutions (4th  ed.,  London,  1910).  Mention  may  be  made  of  Maitland,  Constitu- 
tional History  of  England,  462-484,  and  Medley,  Manual  of  English  Constitutional 
History,  318-383.  Two  valuable  works  by  foreign  writers  are  C.  de  Franqueville, 
Le  systdme  judiciaire  de  la  Grande-Bretagne  (Paris,  1898),  and  H.  B.  Gerland,  Die 
englische  Gerichtsverfassung;  eine  systematische  Darstellung,  2  vols.  (Leipzig, 
1910).  On  the  Judicature  Acts  of  1873-1876  see  Holdsworth,  I.,  402-417. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  177 

tion  of  the  People  Act  of  1884  and  attaining  fruition  in  the  Local  Gov- 
ernment Act  of  1888  and  the  District  and  Parish  Councils  Act  of  1894. 
At  the  opening  of  the  century  rural  administration  was  carried  on 
principally  in  the  shire  or  county  and  the  civil  or  "poor  law  "  parish; 
urban  administration  in  the  corporate  towns,  or  municipal  boroughs. 
The  counties  were  fifty-two  in  number.  Most  of  them  were  of  Saxon 
origin,  although  some  were  the  product  of  absorptions  or  delimitations 
which  took  place  in  later  centuries.  The  last  to  be  added  were  those  of 
Wales.  Altered  often  in  respect  to  their  precise  functions,  the  counties 
retained  from  first  to  last  a  large  measure  of  importance,  and  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  they  were  still  the  principal  areas 
of  local  governing  activity.  From  Saxon  times  to  the  fourteenth  century 
the  dominating  figure  in  county  administration  was  the  sheriff,  but  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  III.  justices  of  the  peace  were  created  into  whose 
hands  during  the  ensuing  five  hundred  years  substantially  all  adminis- 
trative and  judicial  affairs  of  the  county  were  drawn.  These  dignitaries 
were  appointed  by  the  crown,  chiefly  from  the  ranks  of  the  smaller 
landowners  and  rural  clergy,  and  as  a  rule  they  comprised  in  practice 
a  petty  oligarchy  whose  conduct  of  public  business  was  inspired  by 
aristocratic,  far  more  than  by  democratic,  ideals. 

The  principal  division  of  the  county  was  the  civil  parish,  usually 
but  not  always  identical  with  the  ecclesiastical  parish.  The  governing 
bodies  of  the  parish  were  two — the  vestry  (either  open  to  all  rate-payers 
or  composed  of  elected  representatives),  which  administered  general 
affairs,  and  the  overseers  of  the  poor  who  under  the  Elizabethan  stat- 
ute of  1601  were  empowered  to  find  employment  for  the  able-bodied 
poor,  to  provide  other  forms  of  relief  as  should  be  required,  and  to  levy 
a  local  rate  to  meet  the  costs  of  their  work.  Since  the  passage  of  Gil- 
bert's Act  of  1782  the  parishes  had  been  arranged  in  groups  for  poor-law 
purposes,  and  boards  of  guardians  appointed  by  the  justices  of  the 
peace  had  come  to  be  the  real  authorities  in  the  administration  of  poor 
relief,  as  well  as  in  most  other  matters.  The  abuses  arising  from  poor- 
law  administration  were  not  infrequently  appalling. 

187.  The  Borough  before  1832. — The  corporate  towns  in  England 
and  Wales  numbered,  in  1832,  246.  They  comprised  population 
centers  which,  on  the  basis  of  charters  granted  by  the  crown,  had  be- 
come distinct  areas  of  local  government.  They  did  not,  however,  stand 
entirely  apart  from  the  county  and  parish  organization.  On  the  con- 
trary, except  in  so  far  as  they  were  exempted  specifically  by  the  terms  of 
their  charters,  they  were  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  justices  of  the 
peace  and  of  the  governing  agencies  of  the  parishes  within  whose  juris- 
diction they  were  situated.  Their  style  of  government  was  determined 


178  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

largely  by  the  provisions  of  their  charters,  and  since  these  instruments 
exhibited  a  marked  degree  of  variety,  uniformity  of  organization  was 
entirely  lacking.  As  a  rule,  however,  the  borough  was  a  close  corporar 
tion,  and  the  burgesses,  or  "freemen,"  in  whom  were  vested  peculiar 
trading  and  fiscal  rights  and  an  absolute  monopoly  of  the  powers  of 
government,  comprised  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  general  body  of 
citizens.  The  governing  authority  of  the  borough  was  the  town  council, 
whose  members  were  either  elected  by  the  freemen  or  recruited  by  co- 
optation.  Government  was  regularly  oligarchical  and  irresponsible; 
sometimes  it  was  inefficient  and  corrupt. 

188.  The  New  Poor  Law  (1834)  and  the  Municipal  Corporations 
Act  (1836). — The  reforms  accomplished  since  1832  within  the  domain 
of  parliamentary  organization  and  procedure  have  been  hardly  more 
remarkable  than  those  wrought  during  the  same  period  within  the  field 
of  local  government.  It  must  suffice  to  mention  but  the  principal  steps 
by  which  the  local  governing  system  has  been  brought  to  its  present 
high  degree  of  democracy  and  effectiveness.  Among  the  subjects  to 
which  the  first  reformed  parliament  addressed  its  attention  was  the 
direful  condition  into  which  had  fallen  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  the 
initial  stage  of  local  government  regeneration  was  marked  by  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Poor  Law  Amendment  Act  of  1834,  abolishing  out-door 
relief  for  the  able-bodied,  providing  for  the  regrouping  of  parishes  in 
"poor-law  unions,"  and  establishing  a  national  Poor  Law  Commission. 
The  administration  of  relief  within  the  unions  was  intrusted  all  but 
exclusively  to  newly  created  boards  of  guardians,  composed  in  part 
of  the  justices  of  the  peace  sitting  ex-officio  and  in  part  of  members 
specially  elected  by  the  rate-payers.  The  arrangements  set  up  by  the  act 
proved  very  successful  and  they  survive  almost  intact  at  the  present  day. 
The  second  notable  change  was  that  effected  by  the  Municipal  Corpora- 
tions Act  of  1835.  The  enfranchising  of  large  numbers  of  the  towns- 
people in  1832  led  inevitably  to  demand  for  the  democratization  of  the 
aristocratic  borough  governments,  and  within  three  years  the  demand 
was  met  in  a  statute  so  sweeping  as  to  justify  the  assertion  that  with  its 
enactment  the  modern  history  of  the  English  town  begins.1  Sixty-nine 
of  the  old  corporate  towns,  by  reason  of  their  unimportance,  were  now 
deprived  of  the  character  of  boroughs.  The  city  of  London  was  not 
touched,  but  elsewhere  all  municipal  corporations  were  broadened  so  as 
to  personify  legally  the  entire  population  of  the  borough.  The  time- 
honored  municipal  oligarchy  was  broken  down  by  the  giving  of  the 
franchise  to  all  rate-payers,  the  town  councils  were  made  wholly  elective, 
trading  monopolies  and  privileges  were  swept  away,  and  a  variety  of 
1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  144. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  179 

other  reforms  were  introduced.  With  the  adoption  of  this  important 
measure,  however,  the  work  of  reform  came  for  a  time  to  a  halt,  and 
the  widely  assailed  system  of  county  government  through  nominated 
magistrates  in  quarter  sessions  survived  until  i888.1 

V.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  REFORM,  1835-1912 

189.  Mid-Century  Confusion  of  Areas  and  Jurisdictions. — Through- 
out the  earlier  and  middle  portions  of  the  Victorian  period  legislation  re- 
specting local  government  was  abundant,  but  it  was  special  rather  than 
general.  It  pertained  principally  to  the  care  of  highways  and  burial 
grounds,  the  laying  out  and  organization  of  districts  for  the  promotion 
of  sanitation,  the  establishment  of  "improvement  act"  districts,  and, 
notably,  the  erection  and  administration  of  school  districts  under  the 
Elementary  Education  Act  of  1870.  With  each  successive  measure 
the  confusion  of  jurisdictions  and  agencies  was  increased.  The  prevail- 
ing policy  was  to  provide  for  each  fresh  need  as  it  arose  a  special  ma- 
chinery designed  to  meet  that  particular  need,  and  arrangements  effected 
were  seldom  or  never  uniform  throughout  the  country,  nor  did  they  bear 
any  logical  relation  to  arrangements  already  existing  for  other  purposes. 
By  1871  the  country,  as  Lowell  puts  it,  was  divided  into  counties, 
unions,  and  parishes,  and  spotted  over  with  boroughs  and  with  highway, 
burial,  sanitary,  improvement  act,  school,  and  other  districts,  and  of 
these  areas  none  save  the  parishes  and  unions  bore  any  necessary  rela- 
tion to  any  of  the  rest.2  In  the  effort  to  adapt  the  framework  of  the 
administrative  system  to  the  fast  changing  conditions  of  a  rapidly 
growing  population  Parliament  piled  act  upon  act,  the  result  being 
a  sheer  jungle  of  interlacing  jurisdictions  alike  baffling  to  the  student 
and  subversive  of  orderly  and  economical  administration.  It  is  com- 
puted that  in  1883  there  were  in  England  and  Wales  no  fewer  than  27,069 
independent  local  authorities,3  and  that  the  rate-payer  was  taxed  by 
eighteen  different  kinds  of  rates. 

1  The  history  of  the  local  institutions  of  England  prior  to  1835  is  related  in  detail 
in  two  comprehensive  works:  H.  A.  Merewether  and  A.  J.  Stephens,  History  of  the 
Boroughs  and  Municipal  Corporations  of  the  United  Kingdom,  3  vols.  (London, 
1835)  and  S.  and  B.  Webb,  English  Local  Government  from  the  Revolution  to  the 
Municipal  Corporations  Act,  3  vols.    (London  and  New  York,  1904-1908).    The 
first  of  these  was  written  to  promote  the  cause  of  municipal  reform,  but  is  temperate 
and  reliable.    The  second  is  especially  exhaustive,  volume  3  containing  probably 
the  best  existing  treatment  of  the  history  of  borough  government.    For  a  brief 
sketch  see  May  and  Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  II.,  Chap.  15. 

2  Government  of  England,  II.,  135. 

3  These  included  the  52  counties,  the  239  municipal  boroughs,  the  70  improve- 
ment act  districts,  the  1,006  urban  sanitary  districts,  the  577  rural  sanitary  districts, 


l8o  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

190.  Local  Government  Act  of  1888  and  District  and  Parish  Coun- 
cils Act  of  1894. — Soon  after  the  passage  of  the  Elementary  Education 
Act  of  1870  reform  began  to  be  attempted  in  the  direction  both  of 
concentration  of  local  governing  authority  and  the  readjustment  and 
simplification  of  local  governing  areas.  In  1871  the  Poor  Law  Board 
(which  succeeded  the  Poor  Law  Commission  in  1847)  was  converted 
into  the  Local  Government  Board,  with  the  purpose  of  concentrating 
in  a  single  department  the  supervision  of  the  laws  relating  to  public 
health,  the  relief  of  the  poor,  and  local  government;  and  when,  in 
1872,  the  entire  country  was  divided  into  urban  and  rural  sanitary 
districts,  the  work  was  done  deliberately  in  such  a  fashion  as  to  involve 
the  least  possible  addition  to  the  existing  complexities  of  the  adminis- 
trative system.1  The  two  measures,  however,  by  which,  in  the  main, 
order  was  brought  out  of  confusion  were  the  Local  Government  Act 
of  1888  and  the  District  and  Parish  Councils  Act  of  1894.  The  first 
of  these,  referred  to  commonly  as  the  County  Councils  Act,  was  the 
sequel  of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act  of  1884  and  was  def- 
initely intended  to  invest  the  newly  enfranchised  rural  population 
with  a  larger  control  of  county  affairs.  The  act  created  sixty-two 
administrative  counties  (some  coterminous  with  pre-existing  counties, 
others  comprising  subdivisions  of  them)  and  some  three  score  "county 
boroughs,"  comprising  towns  of  more  than  50,000  inhabitants.2  In 
each  county  and  county  borough  there  was  set  up  a  council,  at  least 
two-thirds  of  whose  members  were  elective,  and  to  this  council  was 
transferred  the  administrative  functions  of  the  justices  of  the  peace, 
leaving  to  those  dignitaries  of  the  old  regime  little  authority  save  of  a 
judicial  character.  The  democratization  of  rural  government  accom- 
plished by  the  Conservative  ministry  of  Lord  Salisbury  in  1888  was 
supplemented  by  the  provisions  of  the  District  and  Parish  Councils 
Act,  carried  by  a  Liberal  ministry  in  i8g4.3  This  measure  provided 
(i)  that  every  county  should  be  divided  into  districts,  urban  and  rural, 

the  2,051  school  board  districts,  the  424  highway  districts,  the  853  burial  board 
districts,  the  649  poor-law  unions,  the  14,946  poor-law  parishes,  the  5,064  highway 
parishes  not  included  in  urban  or  highway  districts,  and  the  1,300  ecclesiastical 
parishes.  For  the  situation  in  1888  see  G.  L.  Gomme,  Lectures  on  the  Principles 
of  Local  Government  (London,  1897),  12-13. 

1  The  arrangements  effected  at  this  time  were  perpetuated  in  the  great  Public 
Health  Act  of  1875.    Lowell,  Government  of  England  II.,  137. 

2  The  number  of  county  boroughs  had  been  increased  by  1910  to  seventy-four. 
See  p.  188. 

8  It  should  be  observed  that  the  original  intent  in  1888  was  to  deal  with  district 
as  well  as  county  organization.  In  its  final  form  the  bill  carried  in  that  year  had  ts 
do  only,  however,  with  the  counties. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  181 

and  every  district  into  parishes,  and  (2)  that  in  every  district  and  in 
every  rural  parish  with  more  than  three  hundred  inhabitants  there 
should  be  an  elected  council,  while  in  the  smallest  parishes  there  should 
be  a  primary  assembly  of  all  persons  whose  names  appear  on  the  local 
government  and  parliamentary  register.  To  the  parish  councils  and 
assemblies  were  transferred  all  of  the  civil  functions  of  the  vestries, 
leaving  to  those  bodies  the  control  of  ecclesiastical  matters  only,  while 
to  the  district  councils,  whether  rural  or  urban,  were  committed  con- 
trol of  sanitary  affairs  and  highways. 

The  effect  of  the  acts  of  1888  and  1894  was  two-fold.  In  the  first 
place,  they  put  the  administrative  affairs  of  the  rural  portions  of  the 
country  in  the  hands  almost  exclusively  of  popularly  elected  bodies. 
In  the  second  place,  their  adoption  afforded  opportunity  for  the  imme- 
diate or  gradual  abolition  of  all  local  governing  authorities  except  the 
county,  municipal,  district,  and  parish  councils,  the  boards  of  guard- 
ians, and  the  school  boards,  and  thus  they  contributed  vastly  to  that 
gradual  simplification  of  the  local  governing  system  which  is  one  of 
the  most  satisfactory  developments  of  recent  years.  The  act  of  1894 
alone  abolished  some  8,000  authorities.  Since  1894  the  consolidation 
of  authorities  and  the  elimination  of  areas  have  been  carried  yet  fur- 
ther, the  most  notable  step  being  the  abolition  of  the  school  boards  by 
the  Education  Act  of  1902  and  the  transfer  of  the  functions  of  these 
bodies  to  the  councils  of  the  counties,  boroughs,  and  districts.  Both 
the  majority  and  minority  reports  of  the  recent  Poor  Law  Commission, 
submitted  in  1909,  recommend  the  abolition  of  the  parish  union  area; 
but  no  action  has  been  taken  as  yet  by  Parliament  upon  this  subject.1 

VI.  LOCAL  AND  CENTRAL  GOVERNMENT 

The  system  of  local  government  as  it  operates  at  the  present  time  is 
by  no  means  free  from  anomalies,  but  it  exhibits,  none  the  less,  an 
orderliness  and  a  simplicity  which  were  altogether  lacking  a  generation 
ago.  The  variety  of  areas  of  administration  has  been  lessened,  the 
number  of  officials  has  been  reduced  and  their  relations  have  been 
simplified,  the  guiding  hand  of  the  central  authorities  in  local  affairs 
has  been  strengthened.  Stated  briefly,  the  situation  is  as  follows: 
the  entire  kingdom  is  divided  into  counties  and  county  boroughs;  the 
counties  are  subdivided  into  districts,  rural  and  urban,  and  boroughs ; 
these  are  subdivided  further  into  parishes,  which  are  regrouped  in 
poor-law  unions;  while  the  city  of  London  is  organized  after  a  fashion 

1  The  history  of  local  government  changes  since  1870  is  well  sketched  in  May  and 
Holland,  Constitutional  History  of  England,  III.,  Chap.  5. 


182  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

peculiar  to  itself.  In  order  to  make  clear  the  essentials  of  the  system 
it  will  be  necessary  to  allude  but  briefly  to  the  connection  which  ob- 
tains between  the  local  and  central  administrative  agencies,  and  to 
point  out  the  principal  features  of  each  of  the  governmental  units 
named. 

191.  The  Five  Central  Departments. — Throughout  most  periods 
of  its  history  English  local  government  has  involved  a  smaller  amount 
of  interference  and  of  direction  on  the  part  of  the  central  authorities 
than  have  the  local  governments  of  the  various  continental  nations. 
Even  to-day  the  general  government  is  not  present  in  county  or  borough 
in  any  such  sense  as  that  in  which  the  French  government,  in  the  per- 
son of  the  prefect,  is  present  in  the  department,  or  the  Prussian, 
through  the  agency  of  the  "administration,"  is  present  in  the  dis- 
trict. A  noteworthy  aspect  of  English  administrative  reform  during 
the  past  three-quarters  of  a  century  has  been,  nevertheless,  a  large 
increase  of  centralized  control,  if  not  of  technical  centralization,  in 
relation  to  poor-relief,  education,  finance,  and  the  other  varied  func- 
tions of  the  local  governing  agencies.  There  are  to-day  five  ministerial 
departments  which  exercise  in  greater  or  lesser  measure  this  kind  of 
control.^One,  the  Home  Office,  has  special  surveillance  of  police  and 
of  factory  inspectionv^A  second,  the  Board  of  Education,  directs  and 
supervises  all  educational  agencies  which  are  aided  by  public  funds. 
A  third,  the  Board  of  Agriculture,  supervises  the^nforcement  of 
laws  relating  to  markets  and  to  diseases  of  animals^  A  fourth,  the 
Board  of  Trade,  investigates  and  approves  enterprises  relating  to  the 
supply  of  water,  gas,  and  electricity,  and  to  other  forms  of  "  municipal 
trading. Q/Most  important  of  all,  the  Local  Government  Board  directs 
in  all  that  pertains  to  the  execution  of  the  poor  laws  and  the  activities 
of  the  local  health  authorities,  oversees  the  financial  operations  of  the 
local  bodies,  and  fulfills  a  variety  of  other  supervisory  functions  too 
extended  to  be  enumerated.  The  powers  of  these  departments  in 
relation  to  local  affairs  are  exercised  in  a  number  of  ways,  but  chiefly 
through  the  promulgation  of  orders  and  regulations,  the  giving  or 
withholding  of  assent  to  proposed  measures  of  the  local  bodies,  and  the 
giving  of  expert  advice  and  guidance.  It  need  hardly  be  added  that 
the  powers  and  functions  of  the  local  authorities  are  subject  at  all 
times  to  control  by  parliamentary  legislation.1 

1  On  the  relations  between  the  central  and  local  agencies  of  government  see 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  Chap.  46;  J.  Redlich  and  F.  W.  Hirst,  Local 
Government  in  England,  2  vols.  (London,  1903),  II.,  Pt.  6;  Traill,  Central  Govern- 
ment, Chap,  n;  and  M.  R.  Maltbie,  English  Local  Government  of  To-day;  a 
Study  of  the  Relations  of  Central  and  Local  Government  (New  York,  1897). 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  183 


VII.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY:  RURAL 

192.  The  Administrative  County.— Since  the  reform  of  1888  there 
have  been  in  England  counties  of  two  distinct  kinds.    There  are,  in 
the  first  place,  the  historic  counties,  fifty-two  hi  number,  which  survive 
as  areas  for  parliamentary  elections  and,  in  some  instances,  for  the 
organization  of  the  militia  and  the  administration  of  justice.    Their 
officials — the  lord  lieutenant,  the  sheriff,  and  the  justices  of  the  peace 
— are  appointed  by  the  crown.    Much  more  important,  however,  are 
the  administrative  counties,  sixty-two  in  number,1  created  and  reg- 
ulated by  the  local  government  legislation  of  1888  and  1894.    Six  of 
these  administrative  counties  coincide  geographically  with  ancient 
counties,  while  most  of  the  remaining  ones  represent  no  wide  varia- 
tion from  the  historic  areas  upon  which  they  are  based.    Yorkshire 
and  Lincolnshire  were  divided  into  three  of  the  new  counties  each,  and 
eight  others  were  divided  into  two.    The  administrative  counties  do 
not  include  the  seventy-four  county  boroughs  which  are  located  geo- 
graphically within  them,  but  they  do  include  all  non-county  boroughs 
and  urban  districts,  so  that  they  are  by  no  means  altogether  rural. 
They  are  extremely  unequal  in  size  and  population,  the  smallest  being 
Rutland  with  19,709  inhabitants  and  the  largest  Lancashire  with 
1,827,436. 

193.  The  County  Council. — The  governing  authority  in  each  ad- 
ministrative county  is  the  county  council,  a  body  composed  of  (i) 
councillors  elected  for  a  term  of  three  years  in  single-member  electoral 
divisions  under  franchise  qualifications  identical  with  those  prevailing 
in  the  boroughs,  save  that  plural  voting  is  not  permitted,  and  (2)  alder- 
men chosen  for  six  years  by  the  popularly  elected  councillors.    The 
number  of  aldermen  is  regularly  one-third  that  of  the  other  councillors, 
and  half  of  the  quota  retire  triennially.    Between  the  two  classes  of 
members  there  is  no  distinction  of  power  or  function.    The  council 
elects  a  chairman  and  vice-chairman  who  hold  office  one  year  but  are 
commonly  re-elected.    Other  officers  are  the  clerk,  the  chief  constable, 
the  treasurer,  the  surveyor,  the  public  analyst,  inspectors  of  various 
kinds,  educational  officials,  and  coroners.    The  tenure  of  these  is  not 
affected  by  changes  in  the  composition  of  the  council.    Legally,  the 
chairman  is  only  a  presiding  official,  though  in  practice  his  influence 
may  be,  and  not  infrequently  is,  greater  than  that  of  any  other  mem- 
ber.   In  the  election  of  councillors  party  feeling  seldom  displays  it- 

1  Including  the  county  of  London.    See  p.  190. 


1 84  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

self,  and  elections  are  very  commonly  uncon tested.1  Members  are 
drawn  mainly  from  the  landowners,  large  farmers,  and  professional 
men,  though  representatives  of  the  lower  middle  and  laboring  classes 
occasionally  appear.  The  councils  vary  greatly  in  size,  but  the  average 
membership  is  approximately  seventy-five.  The  bringing  together  of 
so  many  men  at  frequent  intervals  is  not  easily  accomplished  and  the 
bodies  do  not  assemble  ordinarily  more  than  the  four  times  a  year 
prescribed  by  law.  The  mass  of  business  devolving  upon  them  is 
transacted  largely  through  the  agency  of  committees.  Of  these,  some, 
as  the  committees  on  finance,  education,  and  asylums,  are  required 
by  law;  others  are  established  as  occasion  arises. 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  council  are  many  and  varied.  In  the 
main,  though  not  wholly,  they  represent  the  former  administrative 
functions  of  the  justices  of  the  peace.  In  the  act  of  1888  they  are 
enumerated  in  sixteen  distinct  categories,  of  which  the  most  important 
are  the  raising,  expending,  and  borrowing  of  money;  the  care  of  county 
property,  buildings,  bridges,  lunatic  asylums,  reformatory  and  indus- 
trial schools;  the  appointment  of  inferior  administrative  officials; 
the  granting  of  certain  licenses  other  than  for  the  sale  of  liquor;  2  the 
care  of  main  highways  and  the  protection  of  streams  from  pollution; 
and  the  execution  of  various  regulations  relating  to  animals,  fish,  birds, 
and  insects.  By  the  Education  Act  of  1902  the  council  is  given  large 
authority  within  the  domain  of  education.  It  must  see  that  adequate 
provision  is  made  for  elementary  schools,  and  it  may  assist  in  the 
maintenance  of  agencies  of  education  of  higher  grades.  The  control 
of  police  within  the  county  devolves  upon  a  joint  committee  represent- 
ing the  council  and  the  justices  of  the  peace.  Finally,  the  council 
may  make  by-laws  for  the  county,  supervise  in  a  measure  the  minor 
rural  authorities,  and  perform  the  work  of  these  authorities  when 
they  prove  remiss.3 

194.  The  Rural  District. — Within  the  administrative  county  are  four 
kinds  of  local  government  areas — rural  districts,  rural  parishes, 
urban  districts,  and  municipal  boroughs.  Of  rural  districts  there 
are  in  England  and  Wales  672.  They  are  coterminous,  as  a  rule, 
with  rural  poor-law  unions,  or  with  the  rural  portions  of  unions 
which  are  both  rural  and  urban;  but  they  may  not  comprise  parts 
of  more  than  one  county.  The  governing  authority  of  the  district 

1  At  the  elections  of  1901  there  were  contests  in  but  433  of  3,349  divisions.  P. 
Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government;  a  Comparative  Study  of  England,  France, 
Prussia,  and  the  United  States  (London,  1906),  25,  note. 

'Liquor  licenses  are  granted  by  the  justices  of  the  peace. 

3  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  274-275. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  185 

is  a  council,  composed  of  persons  (women  being  eligible)  chosen  in 
most  instances  triennially  by  the  rural  parishes  in  accordance  with 
population.  Unless  an  order  is  made  to  the  contrary,  one-third 
retire  each  year.  The  members  at  the  same  time  represent  on  the 
board  of  guardians  of  the  union  the  parishes  from  which  they  have 
been  elected,  although  the  two  bodies  are  legally  distinct.  The 
council  must  meet  at  least  once  a  month.  Its  chairman,  who  during 
his  year  of  office  is  ex-officio  a  justice  of  the  peace,  may  be  chosen  from 
among  the  councillors  or  from  outside;  and  the  same  is  true  of  mem- 
bers of  committees.  The  principal  salaried  and  permanent  officials 
are  the  clerk,  the  treasurer,  a  medical  officer,  a  surveyor,  and  sanitary 
inspectors.  The  functions  of  the  councils  pertain,  in  the  main,  to 
the  administration  of  sanitation  and  of  highways.  The  bodies  are 
responsible  largely  for  the  execution  in  the  rural  localities  of  the 
various  public  health  acts,  and  they  have  charge  of  all  highways 
which  are  not  classed  as  "main  roads."  To  meet  in  part  the  costs 
of  this  administration  they  are  empowered  to  levy  district  rates. 

196.  The  Parish. — Of  parishes  there  are  two  types,  the  rural  and 
the  urban,  and  their  aggregate  number  in  England  and  Wales  is 
approximately  15,000.  The  urban  parishes  possess  no  general  ad- 
ministrative importance  and  further  mention  need  not  be  made  of 
them  here.  Under  the  act  of  1894  the  rural  parish,  however,  has 
been  revived  in  a  measure  from  the  inert  condition  into  which  it  had 
fallen,  and  it  to-day  fills  an  appreciable  if  humble  place  in  the  rural 
administrative  regime.  The  style  of  its  organization  is  dependent  to 
a  degree  upon  its  population.  In  each  parish  there  is  a  meeting  in 
which  all  persons  on  the  local  government  and  parliamentary  regis- 
ters (including  women  and  lodgers)  are  privileged  to  participate. 
This  meeting  elects  its  own  chairman,  and  it  likewise  chooses  a  num- 
ber of  overseers  whose  duty  it  is  to  assess  and  collect  certain  local 
rates,  to  administer  the  poor-rate,  and  to  make  up  the  electoral 
and  jury  lists.  All  parishes  whose  population  numbers  as  much  as 
three  hundred  have  a  council  composed  of  from  five  to  fifteen  mem- 
bers (women  being  eligible),  elected  as  a  rule  for  a  term  of  three  years. 
The  list  of  powers  which  the  parish  authorities  may  exercise  is  ex- 
tended, if  not  imposing.  It  includes  the  maintenance  of  foot-paths, 
the  management  of  civil  parochial  property,  the  provision  of  fire 
protection,  the  inspection  of  local  sanitation,  and  the  appointment 
of  trustees  of  civil  charities  within  the  parish.  The  meagerness  of 
the  population  of  large  numbers  of  the  parishes,  however,  together 
with  the  severe  limitations  imposed  both  by  law  and  by  practical 
conditions  upon  rate-levying  powers,  preclude  the  authorities  very 


1 86  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

generally  from  undertaking  many  or  large  projects.  It  is  regarded 
commonly  that  the  parishes  are  too  small  to  be  made  such  areas  of 
public  activity  as  the  authors  of  the  act  of  1894  had  in  mind.  Prac- 
tically, the  parish  is  little  more  than  a  unit  for  the  election  of  repre- 
sentatives and  the  collection  of  rates.1 

For  purposes  of  poor-law  administration,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
there  have  existed  since  1834  poor-law  unions,  consisting  of  numbers 
of  parishes  grouped  together,  usually  without  much  effort  to  obtain 
equality  of  size  or  population.  These  unions  not  infrequently  com- 
prise both  rural  and  urban  parishes,  and  in  cases  of  this  kind  the 
board  of  guardians  is  composed  of  the  persons  elected  as  district 
councillors  in  the  rural  parishes  of  the  union,  together  with  other 
persons  who  are  elected  immediately  as  guardians  in  the  urban  parishes 
and  have  no  other  function.  The  conditions  under  which  poor  relief 
is  administered  are  prescribed  rather  minutely  in  general  regulations 
laid  down  by  the  Local  Government  Board  at  London,  so  that,  save 
in  the  matter  of  levying  rates,  the  range  of  discretion  left  to  the  boards 
of  guardians  is  closely  restricted.2  v 

'•• 

VIII.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY:  URBAN 

196.  The  Urban  District. — Of  areas  within  which  are  administered 
the  local  affairs  of  the  urban  portions  of  the  kingdom  there  are  several 
of  distinct  importance,  although  in  reality  the  institutions  of  urban 
government  are  less  complex  than  they  appear  on  the  surface  to  be. 
In  the  main,  the  legal  basis  of  urban  organization  is  the  Municipal 
Corporations  Consolidation  Act  of  1882,  which  comprises  a  codifica- 
tion  of  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835  and  a  mass  of  subse- 
quent and  amending  legislation.  This  great  statute  is  supplemented 
at  a  number  of  points  by  the  Local  Government  Act  of  1888,  the 
District  and  Parish  Councils  Act  of  1894,  the  Education  Act  of  i9oi, 
and  other  regulative  measures  of  the  past  thirty  years.  At  the  bottom 
of  the  scale  among  urban  governmental  units  stands  the  urban  dis- 
trict, which  differs  from  an  ordinary  borough  principally  in  that 
it  has  no  charter  and  its  council  possesses  less  authority  than  does 
that  of  the  borough.3  The  number  of  urban  districts  is  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  eight  hundred.  Under  the  terms  of  the  act  of  1894  the 
governing  authority  in  each  is  a  council  consisting  of  members  elected 
for  three  years,  women  being  eligible.  There  are  no  aldermen,  and 

1  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  281. 

1  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government,  52-60. 

8  Speaking  strictly,  a  borough  is  an  urban  district,  and  something  more. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  187 

no  mayor  is  chosen.  The  council  elects  its  own  chairman  and  other 
officers,  and  it  meets  at  least  once  a  month.  Its  functions,  of  which 
the  most  important  is  the  control  of  sanitation  and  of  highways,  are 
discharged  largely  through  the  agency  of  committees.  The  district 
council  possesses  none  of  the  police  and  judicial  privileges  which  the 
borough  councils  commonly  enjoy.  It  is  more  closely  controlled  by 
the  Lqcal ^Government  Bqard^and,  in  general,  it  lacks  "the  status 
and  ornamental  trappings  of  a  municipal  authority.1"  Yet  in  prac- 
tice its  powers  are  hardly  less  extensive  than  are  those  of  the  council 
of  a  full-fledged  borough.  New  urban  districts  may  be  created  in 
thickly  populated  localities  by  joint  action  of  the  county  council  and 
the  Local  Government  Board. 

197.  Boroughs  and  "Cities." — The  standard  type  of  municipal  unit 
is  the  borough.    Among  boroughs  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  varia- 
tion, but  the  differences  which  exist  are  those  rather  of  historic  develop- 
ment and  of  nomenclature  than  of  governmental  forms  or  functions. 
There  are  "  municipal "  boroughs,  "  county"  boroughs,  and  cities.  Any 
non-rural  areaTupon  which  has  been  conferred  a  charter  stipulating 
rights  of  local  self-government  is  a  borough.    Areas  of  the  sort  which 
have  been  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  administrative 
counties  in  which  they  are  situated  are  county  boroughs;  those  not  so 
withdrawn  are  municipal  boroughs.     The  term  "city"  was  once 
employed  to  designate  exclusively  places  which  were  or  had  been  the 
seat  of  a  bishop.    Nowadays  the  title  is  borne  not  only  by  places  of 
this  nature  but  also  by  places,  as  Sheffield  and  Leeds,  upon  which  it 
has  been  conferred  by  royal  patent.    Save,  however^ln  the  case  of  the 
city  of  London,  where  alone  in  England  ancient  municipal  institu- 
tions have  been  generally  preserved,  the  term  possesses  no  political 
significance.2    The  governments  of  the  cities  are  identical  with  those 
of  the  non-city  boroughs.    It  is  to  be  observed,  further,  that  whereas 
formerly  the  borough  as  organized  for  municipal  purposes  coincided 
with  the  borough  as  constituted  for  purposes  of  representation  in 
Parliament,  there  is  now  no  necessary  connection  between  the  two. 
An  addition  to  a  municipal  borough  does  not  alter  the  parliamentary 
constituency. 

198.  Kinds  of  Boroughs. —  The  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of 
1835  made  provision  for  178  boroughs  in  England  and  Wales  and 
stipulated  conditions  under  which  the  number  might  be  increased  from 
time  to  time  by  royal  charter.    In  not  a  few  instances  the  charters  of 
boroughs  at  the  time  existing  were  of  mediaeval  origin.    Since  1875 

1  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government,  45. 
8  See  p.  190. 


1 88  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

new  charters  have  been  conferred  until  the  number  of  boroughs  has 
been  brought  up  to  approximately  350.  For  the  obtaining  of  a  borough 
charter  no  fixed  requirement  of  population  is  laid  down.  Each  appli- 
cation is  considered  upon  its  merits,  and  while  the  size  and  importance 
of  an  urban  community  weigh  heavily  in  the  decision  other  factors 
not  infrequently  are  influential,  with  the  consequence  that  some 
boroughs  are  very  small  while  some  urban  centers  of  size  are  not  yet 
boroughs.  Of  the  present  number  of  boroughs,  seventy-four,  or  about 
one-fifth,  are  county  boroughs.  By  the  act  of  1888  it  was  provided 
that  every  borough  which  had  or  should  attain  a  population  of  50,000 
should  be  deemed,  for  purposes  of  administration,  a  separate  county, 
and  should  therefore  be  exempt  from  the  supervision  exercised  over 
the  affairs  of  the  municipal  boroughs  by  the  authorities  of  the  adminis- 
trative counties.  Any  borough  with  a  population  exceeding  the  figure 
named  may  be  created  a  county  ^borough  by  simple  order  of  the  Local 
Government  Board.  Unlike  the  ordinary  municipal  borough,  the 
county  borough  is  not  represented  in  the  council  of  the  county  in  which 
the  borough  lies;  on  the  contrary,  the  council  of  the  borough  exercises 
substantially  an  equivalent  of  the  powers  exercised  normally  by  the 
county  council,  and  it  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  council  of  that 
variety.  Much  the  larger  portion  of  the  English  boroughs  are,  how- 
ever, simple  municipal  boroughs,  whose  activities  are  subject  to  a 
supervision  more  or  less  constant  upon  the  part  of  the  county  author- 
ities. 

199.  The  Borough  Authorities. — The  difference  between  county 
and  municipal  boroughs  is  thus  one  of  degree  of  local  autonomy,  not 
one  of  forms  or  agencies  of  government.  The  charters  of  all  boroughs 
have  been  brought  into  substantial  agreement  and  the  organs  of 
borough  control  are  everywhere  the  same.  The  governing  authority 
is  the  borough  council,  which  consists  of  councillors,  aldermen,  and  a 
mayor,  sitting  as  a  single  body.  The  councillors,  varying  in  number 
from  nine  to  upwards  of  one  hundred,  are  elected  by  the  voters  of  the 
borough,  either  at  large  or  by  wards,  for  three  years,  and  one-third 
retire  annually.  The  aldermen,  equal  in  number  to  one-third  of  the 
councillors,  are  chosen  by  the  entire  council  for  six  years,  and  are 
selected  usually  from  among  the  councillors  of  most  prolonged  expe- 
rience. The  mayor  is  elected  annually  by  the  councillors  and  alder- 
men, frequently  from  their  own  number.  In  boroughs  of  lesser  size 
re-elections  are  not  uncommon.  Service  in  all  of  the  capacities  men- 
tioned is  unpaid.  The  council  determines  its  own  rules  of  procedure, 
and  its  work  is  accomplished  in  large  measure  through  the  agency  oi 
committees,  some  of  which  are  required  by  statute,  others  of  which 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  189 

are  created  as  occasion  demands;  but,  unlike  the  county  council,  the 
council  of  the  borough  cannot  delegate  any  of  its  powers,  save  those 
relating  to  education,  to  these  committees.  The  mayor  presides  over 
the  council  meetings,  serves  commonly  as  an  ex-qfficio  member  of  com- 
mittees, and  represents  the  municipality  upon  ceremonial  occasions. 
The  office  is  not  one  of  power,  although  it  is  possible  for  an  aggres- 
sive and  tactful  mayor  to  wield  real  influence.  The  permanent  officers 
of  the  council  include  a  clerk,  a  treasurer,  a  medical  official,  a  sec- 
retary for  education,  and  a  variable  number  of  inspectors  and  heads 
of  administrative  departments. 

200.  The  Borough  Council. — In  the  capacity  of  representative 
authority  of  the  municipality  the  council  controls  corporation  prop- 
erty, adopts  and  executes  measures  relative  to  police  and  education, 
levies  rates,  and  not  infrequently  administers  waterways,  tramways, 
gas  and  electric  plants,  and  a  variety  of  other  public  utilities.  The 
enormously  increased  activity  of  the  town  and  urban  district  councils 
4n  respect  to  "municipal  trading  "  within  the  past  two  score  years  has 
aroused  widespread  controversy.  The  purposes  involved  have  been, 
in  the  main,  two — to  avert  the  evils  of  private  monopoly  and  to  obtain 
from  remunerative  services  something  to  set  against  the  heavy  un- 
remunerative  expenditures  rendered  necessary  by  existing  sanitary 
legislation.  And,  although  opposed  by  reason  of  the  outlays  which  it 
requires  and  the  invasion  of  the  domain  of  private  enterprise  which  it 
constitutes,  the  device  of  municipal  ownership  is  being  ever  more 
widely  adopted,  as  in  truth  it  is  also  in  Germany  and  other  European 
countries.1  Aside  from  its  general  functions,  the  borough  council 
is  in  particular  a  sanitary  authority,  and  among  its  most  important 
tasks  is  the  execution  of  regulations  concerning  drainage,  housing, 
markets,  hospitals,  and  indeed  the  entire  category  of  matters  provided 
for  in  the  long  series  of  Public  Health  acts.  The  expenditures  of  the 
council  as  a  municipal  authority  are  met  from  a  fund  made  up  of  fees, 
fines,  and  other  proceeds  of  administration,  together  with  the  income 
from  a  borough  rate,  which  is  levied  on  the  same  basis  as  the  poor  rate; 
its  expenditures  as  a  sanitary  authority  are  met  from  a  fund  raised  by 
a  general  district  rate.  To  assist  in  the  administration  of  education, 
sanitation,  and  police,  grants  are  made  regularly  by  Parliament.2 

1  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government,  42. 

2  The  best  of  existing  works  upon  the  general  subject  of  English  local  government 
is  J.  Redlich,  and  F.  W.  Hirst,  Local  Government  in  England,  2  vols.  (London, 
1903).    There  are  several  convenient  manuals,  of  which  the  most  useful  are  P. 
Ashley,  English  Local  Government  (London,  1905);  W.  B.  Odgers,  Local  Govern- 
ment (London,  1899),  based  on  the  older  work  of  M.  D.  Chalmers;  E.  Jenks,  An 
Outline  of  English  Local  Government  (ad  ed.,  London,  1907);  R.  S.  Wright  and 


IQO  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

201.  The  Government  of  London. — The  unique  governmental 
arrangements  of  London  are  the  product  in  part  of  historical  survival 
and  in  part  of  special  and  comparatively  recent  legislation.  Tech- 
nically, the  "city"  of  London  is  still  what  it  has  been  through  cen- 
turies, i.  e.,  an  area  with  a  government  of  its  own  comprising  but  a 
single  square  mile  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Thames.  By  a  series  of 
measures  covering  a  period  of  somewhat  more  than  fifty  years,  however, 
the  entire  region  occupied  by  the  densely  populated  metropolis  has 
been  drawn  into  a  closely  co-ordinated  scheme  of  local  administration. 
London  was  untouched  by  the  Municipal  Corporations  Act  of  1835 
and  the  changes  by  which  the  governmental  system  of  the  present  day 
was  brought  into  being  began  to  be  introduced  only  with  the  adoption 
of  the  Metropolis  Management  Act  of  1855.  The  government  of  the 
city  was  left  unchanged,  but  the  surrounding  parishes,  intherto 
governed  independently  by  their  vestries,  were  at  this  time  brought 
for  certain  purposes  under  the  control  of  a  central  authority  known  as 
the  Metropolitan  Board  of  Works.  The  Local  Government;  Act  of 
1888  carried  the  task  of  organization  a  stage  further.  The  Board 
of  Works  was  abolished,  extra-city  London  was  transformed 'in  to  an 

H.  Hobhouse,  An  Outline  of  Local  Government  and  Local  Taxation  in  England 
and  Wales  (3d  ed.,  London,  1906);  and  R.  C.  Maxwell,  English  Local  Government 
(London,  1900),  in  Temple  Primer  Series.  The  subject  is  treated  admirably  in 
Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  Chaps.  38-46,  and  a  portion  of  it  in  W.  B. 
Munro,  The  Government  of  European  Cities  (New  York,  1909),  Chap.  3  (full 
bibliography,  pp.  395-402).  There  are  good  sketches  in  Ashley,  Local  and  Central 
Government,  Chaps,  i  and  5,  and  Marriott,  English  Political  Institutions,  Chap.  13. 
A  valuable  group  of  papers  read  at  the  First  International  Congress  of  the  Ad- 
ministrative Sciences,  held  at  Brussels  in  July,  1910,  is  printed  in  G.  M.  Harris, 
Problems  of  Local  Government  (London,  1911).  A  useful  compendium  of  laws 
relating  to  city  government  is  C.  Rawlinson,  Municipal  Corporation  Acts,  and  Other 
Enactments  (9th  ed.,  London,  1903).  Two  appreciative  surveys  by  American 
writers  are  A.  Shaw,  Municipal  Government  in  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1898) 
and  F.  Howe,  The  British  City  (New  York,  1907).  On  the  subject  of  municipal 
trading  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  Lowell,  Government  of  England,  II.,  Chap.  44; 
Lord  Avebury,  Municipal  and  National  Trading  (London,  1907);  L.  Darwin, 
Municipal  Ownership  in  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1906) ;  G.  B.  Shaw,  The  Common 
Sense  of  Municipal  Trading  (London,  1904);  and  C.  Hugo,  Stadteverwaltung 
und  Municipal-Socialismus  in  England  (Stuttgart,  1897).  Among  works  on  poor- 
law  administration  may  be  mentioned  T.  A.  Mackay,  History  of  the  English  Poor 
Law  from  1834  to  the  Present  Time  (New  York,  1900);  P.  T.  Aschrott  and  H.  P. 
Thomas,  The  English  Poor  Law  System,  Past  and  Present  (2d  ed.,  London,  1902); 
and  S.  and  B.  Webb,  English  Poor  Law  Policy  (London,  1910).  The  best  treatise  on 
educational  administration  is  G.  Balfour,  The  Educational  Systems  of  Great 
Britain  and  Ireland  (2d  ed.,  London,  1904).  Finally  must  be  mentioned  C.  Gross, 
Bibliography  of  British  Municipal  History  (New  York,  1897),  an  invaluable  guide 
to  the  voluminous  literature  of  an  intricate  subject. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  191 

administrative  county  of  some  120  square  miles,  and  upon  the  newly 
created  London  County  Council  (elected  by  the  rate-payers)  was 
conferred  a  varied  and  highly  important  group  of  powers.  Finally,  in 
1899  the  London  Government  Act  simplified  the  situation  by  sweeping 
away  a  mass  of  surviving  authorities  and  jurisdictions  and  by  creating 
twenty-eight  metropolitan  boroughs,  each  with  mayor,  aldermen,  and 
councillors  such  as  any  provincial  borough  possesses,  though  with 
powers  specially  defined  and,  on  the  side  of  finance,  somewhat  re- 
stricted. Within  each  borough  are  urban  parishes,  each  with  its  own 
vestry. 

At  the  center  of  the  metropolitan  area  stands  still  the  historic  City, 
with  its  lord  mayor,  its  life  aldermen,  and  its  annually  elected  coun- 
cillors, organized  after  a  fashion  which  has  hardly  changed  in  four 
and  a  half  centuries.  Within  the  administrative  county  the  county 
council  acts  as  a  central  authority,  the  borough  councils  and  the 
parish  vestries  serve  as  local  authorities.  While  areas  of  common 
administration  still  very  much  larger  than  the  county  comprise, 
among  others,  the  districts  of  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board  and  of 
the  Metropolitan  Police.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Metropolitan  Police 
extends  over  all  parishes  within  fifteen  miles  of  Charing  Cross,  an 
area  of  almost  700  square  miles.1 

1  For  excellent  descriptions  of  the  government  of  London  see  Munro,  Govern- 
ment of  European  Cities,  339-379  (bibliography,  395-402),  and  Lowell,  Govern- 
ment of  England,  II.,  202-232.  Valuable  works  are  G.  L.  Gomme,  Governance  of 
London:  Studies  on  the  Place  occupied  by  London  in  English  Institutions  (London, 
1907);  ibid.,  The  London  County  Council:  its  Duties  and  Powers  according  to  the 
Local  Government  Act  of  1888  (London,  1888);  A.  MacMorran,  The  London 
Government  Act  (London,  1899);  A.  B.  Hopkins,  Boroughs  of  the  Metropolis 
(London,  1900);  and  J.  R.  Seager,  Government  of  London  under  the  London 
Government  Act  (London,  1904).  A  suggestive  article  is  G.  L.  Fox,  The  London 
County  Council,  in  Yale  Review,  May,  1895. 


\ 


PART  II.— GERMANY 

CHAPTER  DC 
THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION 

I.  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  PRIOR  TO  1848 

202.  Napoleonic  Transformations. — Among  the  political  achieve- 
ments of  the  past  hundred  years  few  exceed  in  importance,  and  none 
surpass  in  interest,  the  creation  of  the  present  German  Empire.  The 
task  of  German  unification  may  be  regarded  as  having  been  brought 
formally  to  completion  upon  the  occasion  of  the  memorable  ceremony 
of  January  18,  1871,  when,  in  the  presence  of  a  brilliant  concourse  of 
princes  and  generals  gathered  in  the  Hall  of  Mirrors  in  the  palace  of 
the  French  kings  at  Versailles,  William  I.,  king  of  Prussia,  was  pro- 
claimed German  Emperor.  Back  of  the  dramatic  episode  at  Versailles, 
however,  lay  a  long  course  of  nationalizing  development,  of  which  the 
proclamation  of  an  Imperial  sovereign  was  but  the  culminating  event. 
The  beginnings  of  the  making  of  the  German  Empire  of  to-day  are  to 
be  traced  from  a  period  at  least  as  remote  as  that  of  Napoleon. 

Germany  hi  1814  was  still  disunited  and  comparatively  backward, 
but  it  was  by  no  means  the  Germany  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries.  The  transformations  wrought  to  the  east  of  the  Rhine 
during  the  period  of  the  Napoleonic  ascendancy  were  three-fold.  In 
the  first  place,  after  more  than  a  thousand  years  of  existence,  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  was,  in  1806,  brought  to  an  end,  and  Germany,  never 
theretofore  since  the  days  of  barbarism  entirely  devoid  of  political 
unity,  was  left  without  even  the  semblance  or  name  of  nationality.^ 
In  the  second  place,  there  was  within  the  period  a  far-reaching  re- 
adjustment of  the  political  structure  of  the  German  world,  involving 
(i)  the  reducing  of  the  total  number  of  German  states — kingdoms; 
duchies,  principalities,  ecclesiastical  dominions,  and  knights'  holdings— 
from  above  three  hundred  to  two  score  ;V(2)  the  augmenting  of  the 
importance  of  Austria  by  the  acquisition  of  a  separate  imperial  title,1 

1  In  anticipation  of  the  prospective  abolition  of  the  dignity  of  Emperor  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  the  Emperor  Francis  II.,  in  1804,  assumed  the  title  of  Em- 
peror of  Austria,  under  the  name  Francis  I. 

193 


194  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  the  raising  of  Saxony,  Bavaria,  and  Wiirttemberg  from  duchies 
to  kingdoms;  and  (3)  the  bringing  into  existence  of  certain  new  and 
more  or  less  artificial  political  aggregates,  namely,  the  kingdom  of 
Westphalia,  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw,  and  the  Confederation  of  the 
Rhine,  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  Napoleonic  dominance  of 
north-central  Europe.  Finally,  in  several  of  the  states,  notably 
Prussia,  the  overturn  occasioned  by  the  Napoleonic  conquests 
prompted  systematic  attempts  at  reform,  with  the  consequence  of  a 
revolutionizing  modernization  of  social  and  economic  conditions  alto- 
gether comparable  with  that  which  within  the  generation  had  been 
achieved  in  France. 

The  simple  reduction  of  the  German  states  in  number,  noteworthy 
though  it  was,  did  not  mean  necessarily  the  realization  of  a  larger 
measure  of  national  unity,  for  the  rivalries  of  the  states  which  survived 
tended  but  to  be  accentuated.  But  if  the  vertical  cleavages  by  which 
the  country  was  divided  were  deepened,  those  of  a  horizontal  character, 
arising  from  social  and  economic  privilege,  were  in  this  period  largely 
done  away.  Serfdom  was  abolished;  the  knights  as  a  political  force 
disappeared;  the  free  cities  were  reduced  to  four;  and  such  distinctions 
of  caste  as  survived  rapidly  declined  in  political  importance.  By  an 
appreciable  levelling  of  society  the  way  was  prepared  for  co-ordinated 
national  development,  while  by  the  extinction  of  a  variety  of  republi- 
can and  aristocratic  sovereignties  monarchy  as  a  form  of  government 
acquired  new  powers  of  unification  and  leadership.1 

203.  The  Congress  of  Vienna  and  the  Confederation  of  1815. — 
The  collapse  of  the  dominion  of  Napoleon  was  followed  in  Germany 
by  rather  less  of  a  return  to  earlier  arrangements  than  might  have 
been  expected.  Indeed,  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  involved  any 
such  return  at  all.  The  Confederation  of  the  Rhine  was  dissolved, 
and  both  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw  and  the  kingdom  of  Westpha- 
lia ceased,  as  such,  to  be.  But  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  not 
revived;  the  newly  acquired  dignities  of  the  sovereigns  of  Saxony, 
Bavaria,  and  other  states  were  perpetuated;  despite  the  clamors  of 
the  mediatized  princes,  the  scores  of  German  states  which  during  the 
decade  had  been  swallowed  up  by  their  more  powerful  neighbors, 
or  had  been  otherwise  blotted  out,  were  not  re-established;  and — 
most  important  of  all — the  social  and  economic  changes  by  which 

1  On  Germany  during  the  Napoleonic  period  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  IX., 
Chap,  ii ;  J.  H.  Rose,  Life  of  Napoleon  I.,  2  vols.  (new  ed.,  New  York,  1910),  II., 
Chaps.  24-25;  A.  Fournier,  Napoleon  I.,  a  Biography,  trans,  by  A.  E.  Adams, 
2  vols.  (New  York,  1911),  I.,  Chaps.  11-12;  J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein; 
or  Germany  and  Prussia  in  the  Napoleonic  Age,  3  vols.  (Cambridge,  1878);  H.  A. 
L.  Fisher,  Studies  in  Napoleonic  Statesmanship,  Germany  (Oxford,  1903). 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  195 

the  period  had  been  given  distinction  were,  in  large  part,  not  un- 
done. 

As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  period  found 
Germany  entirely  devoid  of  political  unity,  in  both  name  and  fact. 
By  the  governments  which  were  chiefly  influential  in  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  Europe  in  1814-1815,  it  was  deemed  expedient  that  there  be 
re-established  some  degree  of  German  unity,  though  on  the  part  of 
most  of  them,  both  German  and  non-German,  there  was  no  desire  that 
there  be  called  into  existence  a  united  German  nation  of  substantial  in- 
dependence and  power.  In  the  Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
promulgated  under  date  of  June  9,  1815,  there  was  included  the 
draft  of  a  constitution,  prepared  by  a  committee  of  the  Congress 
under  the  presidency  of  Count  Metternich,  in  which  was  laid  down 
the  fundamental  law  of  an  entirely  new  German  union.  Within 
Germany  proper  there  were  recognized  to  be,  when  the  Congress 
had  completed  its  work  of  readjustment,  thirty-eight  states,  of  widely 
varying  size,  importance,  and  condition.  Under  authorization  of 
the  Congress,  these  states  were  now  organized,  not  into  an  empire 
with  a  common  sovereign,  but  into  a  Bund,  or  Confederation,  whose 
sole  central  organ  was  a  Bundestag,  or  Diet,  sitting  at  Frankfort-on- 
the-Main  and  composed  of  delegates  commissioned  by  the  sovereigns 
of  the  affiliated  states  and  serving  under  their  immediate  and  abso- 
lute direction.  Save  only  in  respect  to  certain  matters  pertaining 
to  foreign  relations  and  war,  each  of  the  thirty-eight  states  retained 
its  autonomy  unimpaired.1 

rl204.)  The  Diet. — The  Diet  was  in  no  proper  sense  a  parliamentary 
bo3y7but  was  rather  a  congress  of  sovereign  states.  Nominally,  its 
powers  were  large.  They  included  both  the  regulation  of  the  funda- 
mental law  and  the  performance  of  the  functions  of  ordinary  legisla- 
tion. But,  in  practice,  the  authority  of  the  body  was  meager  and 
exercise  of  discretion  was  absolutely  precluded.  The  members,  as 
delegates  of  the  princes,  spoke  and  voted  only  as  they  were  instructed. 
Questions  relating  to  the  fundamental  laws  and  the  organic  institu- 
tions of  the  Confederation  and  "other  arrangements  of  common 
interest"  were  required  to  be  decided  by  the  Diet  as  a  whole  (in 
Plenum),  with  voting  power  distributed  among  the  states,  in  rough 
proportion  to  their  importance.  Of  the  total  of  69  votes,  six  of  the 
principal  states  possessed  four  each.  The  preparation  of  measures 
for  discussion  in  Plenum  was  intrusted  to  the  "ordinary  assembly," 

1  In  1817  the  number  was  brought  up  to  39  by  the  adding  of  Hesse-Homburg, 
unintentionally  omitted  when  the  original  list  was  made  up.  By  successive  changes 
the  number  was  reduced  to  33  before  the  dissolution  of  the  Confederation  in  1866. 


196  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

a  smaller  gathering  in  which  Austria,  Prussia,  and  nine  other  states 
had  each  one  vote,  and  six  curia,  comprising  the  remaining  states 
in  groups  had  likewise  each  a  single  vote.  The  presidency  of  the 
two  assemblies  was  vested  permanently  in  Austria,  and  the  Austrian 
delegation  possessed  in  each  a  casting  vote.  Proposals  were  carried 
in  the  smaller  body  by  simple  majority,  but  in  Plenum  only  by  a 
two-thirds  vote.  For  the  enactment  of  fundamental  laws,  the  modifi- 
cation of  organic  institutions,  the  amendment  of  individual  rights, 
and  the  regulation  of  religious  affairs,  it  was  declared  by  the  Federal 
Act  that  a  majority  vote  should  be  insufficient,  and,  although  it  was 
not  expressly  so  stipulated,  the  intent  was  that  in  such  cases  una- 
nimity should  be  required.  Early  in  the  Diet's  history,  indeed,  the 
president  was  instructed  solemnly  to  announce  that  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  Confederation,  far  from  being  subject  to  revision,  was  to 
be  regarded  as  absolutely  final. 

The  Confederation  was,  and  was  intended  to  be,  only  the  loosest  sort 
of  a  league  of  sovereign  powers.  The  party  of  German  unity,  repre- 
sented by  Stein  and  the  Liberals  generally,  began  by  assuming  it  to 
be  a  Bundesstaat,  or  true  federal  state;  but  at  the  opening  of  the  first 
session  of  the  Diet  (November  5,  1816)  the  Austrian  authorities 
formally  pronounced  it  a  Staateribund,  or  federation  of  states,  and 
from  this  ruling,  according  strictly  with  both  the  facts  of  the  situation 
and  the  intent  of  the  founders,  there  was  no  possible  escape.  The 
powers  and "  functions  which  were  vested  in  the  Confederation  were 
exercised  exclusively  through  and  upon  states,  and  with  the  private 
individual  it  had  no  sort  of  direct  relation,  being,  in  these  respects, 
essentially  similar  to  the  federal  government  of  the  United  States 
under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  The  function  of  the  Diet,  in 
effect,  came  to  be  little  more  than  that  of  registering  and  promulgating 
the  decrees  of  the  authorities  at  Vienna. 

205.  Constitutional .  Progress,  1816-1848. — Notwithstanding  these 
facts,  the  decade  which  terminates  with  the  creation  of  the  Confed- 
eration of  1815  contributed  enormously  to  the  clearing  of  the  way 
for  the  establishment  of  modern  German  unity  and  of  vigorous 
and  efficient  national  government.  Among  large  numbers  of  the 
German  people  there  had  been  engendered  a  genuine  desire,  not 
only  for  constitutionalism  in  government,  but  for  a  substan- 
tial unification  of  the  German-speaking  world;  and  the  increased 
homogeneity  and  prosperity  of  the  kingdom  of  Prussia  pointed  al- 
ready to  the  eventual  realization  of  these  aspirations  under  the  leader- 
ship of  that  powerful  state.  The  history  of  Germany  during  the 
period  from  1815  to  1848  is  a  story  largely  of  the  growth  of  these 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  197 

twin  ideas  of  constitutionalism  and  nationality,  and  of  the  relentless 
combat  which  was  waged  between  their  exponents  and  the  entrenched 
forces  of  autocracy  and  particularism.  Gradually  the  results  of  this 
conflict  found  expression  through  two  developments,  (i)  the  promul- 
gation of  liberalizing  constitutions  in  a  majority  of  the  states  and 
(2)  the  building  of  the  Zollverein,  or  customs  union. 

The  original  draft  of  the  Federal  Act  of  1815  pledged  every  member 
of  the  Confederation  to  establish  a  constitution  within  a  year.  In  the 
final  form  of  the  instrument,  however,  the  time  limit  was  omitted  and 
what  had  been  a  specific  injunction  became  but  a  general  promise.  The 
sovereigns  of  the  two  preponderating  states,  Austria  and  Prussia,  de- 
layed and  eventually  evaded  the  obligation  altogether.  But  in  a  large 
number  of  the  lesser  states  the  promise  that  had  been  made  was  fulfilled 
with  despatch.  In  the  south  the  ground  had  been  cleared  by  the  Napo- 
leonic domination,  and  the  influence  of  French  political  experimentation 
was  more  generally  felt,  so  that,  very  naturally,  the  progress  of  consti- 
tutionalism was  most  rapid  in  that  quarter.  The  new  era  of  constitution- 
making  was  inaugurated  by  the  promulgation  of  the  fundamental  law 
of  Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt,  January  8,  1816.  In  rapid  succession 
followed  similar  grants  in  Schaumburg-Lippe,  January  15,  1816;  Wai- 
deck,  April  19, 1816;  the  grand-duchy  of  Saxe- Weimar-Eisenach,  May  5, 
1816;  Saxe-Hildburghausen,  March  19,  1818;  Bavaria,  May  26,  1818; 
Baden,  August  22, 1818;  Lichtenstein,  November  9, 1818;  Wiirttemberg, 
September  25,  1819;  Hanover,  December  7,  1819;  Brunswick,  April  25, 
1820,  and  the  grand-duchy  of  Hesse,  December  17, 1820.  Instruments 
promulgated  later  during  the  period  under  review  include  those  of  Saxe- 
Meiningen,  in  1829;  Hesse-Cassel,  Saxe-Altenburg,  and  Saxony,  in  1831; 
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,  in  1833;  Lippe,  in  1836;  and  Liibeck,  in 
1846.  In  a  number  of  the  states  mentioned,  including  Bavaria,  Baden, 
Wiirttemberg,  and  Saxony,  the  constitutions  at  this  time  granted  are 
still  in  operation.  Many  of  them  were,  and  some  of  them  remain, 
highly  illiberal.  But,  in  the  aggregate,  the  ground  gained  in  behalf 
of  constitutional  and  enlightened  government  through  their  promulga- 
tion was  enormous. 

The  spread  of  constitutionalism  was  paralleled  by  the  gradual  crea- 
tion, after  1818,  of  the  Zollverein.  This  was  a  customs  union,  taking 
its  origin  in  the  establishment  of  free  trade  throughout  the  kingdom  of 
Prussia,  and  extended  from  state  to  state  until  by  1842  the  whole  of 
Germany  had  been  included  save  the  Hanseatic  towns,  Mecklenburg, 
Hanover,  and  Austria.  The  union  was  maintained  for  purposes  that 
were  primarily  commercial,  but  by  accustoming  the  people  to  con- 
certed effort  and  by  emphasizing  constantly  their  common  interests 


198  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

it  must  be  regarded  as  having  contributed  in  a  very  important  way  to 
the  growth  of  national  consciousness  and  solidarity.  Under  its  agency 
the  lesser  states  were  schooled  deliberately  in  independence  of  Austria 
and  in  reliance  upon  Prussian  leadership. 

II.  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  EMPIRE 

206.  The  Revolution  of  1848. — From   1815  onwards  the  Liberals 
advocated,  in  season  and  out,  the  conversion  of  the  Confederation 
into  a  more  substantial  union  under  a  constitutional  style  of  govern- 
ment.   Aside  from  the  promulgation  of  a  number  of  new  state  con- 
stitutions, the  effects  of  the  revolutionary  movements  of  1830  were,  in 
Germany,  of  -little  consequence.     But  during  the  period  1830-1848 
conditions  so  developed  that  only  the  stimulus  of  a  near-by  liberal 
demonstration  was  required  to  precipitate  to  the  east  of  the  Rhine  a 
popular  uprising  of  revolutionary  proportions.    In  the  constitutional 
history  of  the  German  countries  of  central  Europe  few  periods  are  to 
be  assigned  larger  importance  than  the  years  1848-1849.     Taking  ad- 
vantage of  the  interest  created  by  the  contemporary  revolution  in 
France,  the  Liberal  leaders  began  by  convening  at  Heidelberg,  Marcher, 
1848,  a  Vorparlament,  or  preliminary  meeting,  by  which  arrangements 
were  effected  for  the  election,  by  manhood  suffrage,  of  a  national 
assembly  of  some  six  hundred  members  whose  business  it  should  be  to 
draw  up  a  constitution  for  a  united  German  nation.     This  assembly, 
reluctantly  authorized  by  the  Diet,  convened  May  18  hi  the  free  city 
of  Frankfort.    The  task  to  be  accomplished  was  formidable  and  much 
valuable  time  was  consumed  in  learned  but  irrelevant  disputation. 
In  the  end  it  was  decided  that  not  the  whole  of  Austria,  but  only  the 
German  portions,  should  be  admitted  to  the  new  union;  that  there 
should  be  established  a  full-fledged  parliamentary  system,  with  a  respon- 
sible ministry;  and  that  the  parliament  should  consist  of  two  chambers, 
the  lower  to  be  chosen  by  direct  manhood  suffrage,  the  upper  to  be 
made  up  half  of  members  appointed  by  the  princes  and  half  of  members 
elected  for  six  years  by  the  legislative  bodies  of  the  several  states.    As 
an  executive  some  desired  a  directory  of  three  princes  and  some  wanted 
a  single  president;  but  the  majority  voted  at  length  to  establish  the 
dignity  of  German  Emperor  and  to  offer  it  to  Frederick  William  IV., 
king  of  Prussia. 

207.  The  Reaction. — The  refusal  of  the  Prussian  monarch  to  accept 
the  proffered  title,  save  upon  the  impossible  condition  that  all  of  his 
brother  princes  in  Germany  should  give  their  assent  to  his  so  doing, 
blasted  the  hopes  of  the  patriots.   In  May,  1849,  the  Frankfort  assembly 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  199 

broke  up.  Not  long  thereafter  Prussia,  Saxony,  and  Hanover  agreed 
upon  a  constitution  substantially  like  that  which  the  Frankfort  meeting 
had  proposed.  Other  states  accepted  it,  and  March  20,  1850,  a  parlia- 
ment was  convened  under  it  at  Erfurt.  By  reason  of  the  recovery  of 
Austria,  however,  and  the  subsidence  of  the  revolutionary  movement 
generally  throughout  Germany  the  experiment  promptly  collapsed. 
The  conception  of  a  German  empire  had  been  formulated  with  some 
definiteness,  but  for  its  realization  the  day  had  not  yet  arrived.  The 
old  Confederation,  under  Austrian  domination,  kept  the  field.  After  an 
upheaval  which  involved  the  enforced  promulgation  of  a  constitution,  the 
accession  of  a  new  emperor  (the  present  Francis  Joseph),  and  the 
threatened  loss  of  Hungary,  Bohemia,  and  the  Italian  dependencies, 
the  Austrian  monarchy  recovered  its  balance  and  inaugurated  a  fresh 
era  of  reaction,  during  the  course  of  which  there  was  revoked  not  only 
the  constitution  conceded  at  Vienna  but  also  that  of  almost  every  one 
of  the  German  states.1 

In  Prussia  the  outcome  was  more  fortunate.  In  January,  1850,  Fred- 
erick William  IV.  granted  a  constitution  which  established  a  national 
legislative  assembly  and  admitted  a  portion  of  the  Prussian  people  to  an 
active  participation  in  the  government.  Although  the  instrument 
proved  a  disappointment  to  the  Liberals,  it  has  survived,  with  some 
modifications,  to  the  present  day  as  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Prussian 
kingdom;  and  the  fact  that  Prussia  had  become  fixedly  a  constitutional 
state,  together  with  the  hopeless  deadlock  which  arose  between  Prussia 
and  Austria  in  the  attempted  readjustments  of  1848-1849,  emphasized 
the  conclusion  that  the  future  of  Germany  lay  with  Prussia  rather  than 
with  Austria,  and  that,  indeed,  there  could  be  no  adequate  unification 
of  the  German  people  until  one  of  the  two  great  rival  states  should 
have  been  definitely  ejected.2 

208.  The  War  of  1866.— With  the  elevation  of  Count  von  Bismarck, 
September  23,  1862,  to  the  presidency  of  the  Prussian  ministry,  affairs 
began  to  move  rapidly  toward  the  inevitable  conclusion.  A  month 
prior  to  Bismarck's  appointment  there  had  been  held  at  Frankfort 
a  conference — the  so-called  Furstentag — whose  object  was  the  proposal 
of  a  plan  for  the  reconstitution  of  the  Confederation.  The  scheme 
suggested  contemplated  the  establishment  of  a  directory,  an  assembly 
composed  of  delegates  from  the  various  diets,  and  a  federal  court  of 

1  See  pp.  454-456. 

2  On  the  revolution  of  1848  in  Germany  see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI., 
Chaps.  3,  6,  7;  H.  von  Sybel,  The  Founding  of  the  German  Empire  trans,  by  M.  L. 
Perrin,  y  vols.  (New  York,  1890-1898),  I.,  145-243;  H.  Blum,  Die  deutsche  Rev- 
olution, 1848-1849  (Florence  and  Leipzig,   1897);  P.  Matter,  La  Prusse  et  la 
revolution  de  1848  (Paris,  1903). 


200  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

appeal.  The  conference  was  held  at  the  instigation  of  Austria,  and  it 
was  intended  primarily  to  promote  an  alignment  of  the  liberal  forces 
against  Prussia.  The  last-mentioned  state  refused,  naturally,  to  have 
part  in  the  proceedings,  and  the  enterprise  came  to  naught.  A  brief 
interlude  in  the  fast  developing  contest  was  afforded  by  the  Austro- 
Prussian  alliance  against  Denmark  in  1864;  but  the  net  result  of  this 
episode  was  only  to  supply  the  occasion  for  war  which  Bismarck  desired. 
In  1866  Prussia  came  forward  with  a  project  for  the  reorganization  of 
the  Confederation  (in  reality,  a  counter-bid  for  popular  support),  the 
more  noteworthy  features  of  which  were  the  total  exclusion  of  Austria 
from  the  league  and  the  establishment  of  a  parliament  elected  by  man- 
hood suffrage.  As  was  inevitable,  the  Diet  rejected  the  scheme;  where- 
upon, with  the  object  of  forcing  Austria  into  helpless  isolation,  Bismarck 
and  his  royal  master,  William  I.,  in  June,  1866,  proclaimed  the  Con- 
federation to  be  dissolved  and  plunged  the  whole  of  Germany  in  civil 
war. 

209.  The  North  German  Bund,  1867.— The  conflict  was  short  and 
sharp.  Its  outcome  was  the  crushing  defeat  of  Austria,  and  in  the 
treaty  of  Prague  (August  23,  1866)  the  proud  Hapsburg  monarchy 
was  compelled  to  assent  to  a  reconstitution  of  the  German  federation 
in  which  Austria  should  have  no  part.  A  number  of  lesser  states  which 
had  supported  Austria — Hanover,  Nassau,  Hesse-Cassel,  and  Frankfort 
— were  forthwith  incorporated  by  Prussia,  by  decree  of  September  20, 
I866,1  and  among  the  group  of  surviving  powers  the  preponderance 
of  Prussia  was  more  than  ever  indisputable.  Realizing,  however,  that 
the  states  of  the  south— Bavaria,  Baden,  Wiirttemberg,  and  Hesse- 
Darmstadt — were  not  as  yet  ready  to  be  incorporated  under  a  central- 
ized administration,  Prussia  contented  herself  for  the  moment  with 
setting  up  a  North  German  Bund,  comprising  the  states  to  the  north 
of  the  river  Main,  twenty-two  in  all.  February  24,  1867,  there  was 
brought  together  in  Berlin  a  constitutional  diet,  representing  all  of 
the  affiliated  states  and  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  and  secret  ballot. 
A  constitution,  drafted  previously  by  a  committee  of  plenipotentiaries, 
was  debated  from  March  9  to  April  16  and  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of 
230  to  53.  After  having  been  ratified  by  the  legislative  bodies  of  the 
various  states,  the  instrument  was  put  in  operation,  July  i.  The  prin- 
cipal organs  of  government  for  which  it  made  provision  were  three  in 
number:  (i)  the  Presidium,  or  President,  of  the  Confederation,  the 
dignity  being  hereditary  and  vested  in  the  king  of  Prussia;  (2)  the 
Bundesrath,  or  Federal  Council,  representing  the  various  governments; 
and  (3)  the  Bundestag,  or  Diet,  composed  of  deputies  elected  directly 

1  The  disputed  districts  of  Schleswig-Holstein  were  annexed  at  the  same  time. 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  2OI 

by  manhood  suffrage.  For  all  practical  purposes  the  German  Empire, 
under  the  hegemony  of  Prussia,  was  a  reality. 

210.  Establishment  of  the  Empire,  1871. — For  the  time  being  the 
states  to  the  south  of  the  Main  were  left  to  their  own  devices,  though 
the  constitution  of  the  Bund  was  shaped  purposely  to  permit,  and  even 
to  encourage,  the  accession  of  new  members.  Very  soon  these  southern 
states  entered  the  new  customs  union  of  1867,  maintained  by  the 
northern  states,  and  ere  long  they  were  concluding  with  Prussia 
treaties  of  both  offensive  and  defensive  alliance.  The  patriotic  fervor 
engendered  by  the  war  with  France  in  1870-1871  sufficed  to  complete 
the  work.  Contrary  to  the  expectation  of  Napoleon  III.,  the  states  of 
the  south  contributed  troops  and  otherwise  co-operated  vigorously 
with  the  Prussians  throughout  the  contest,  and  before  its  close  they 
let  it  be  known  that  they  were  ready  to  become  full-fledged  members 
of  the  Confederation.  On  the  basis  of  treaty  arrangements,  con- 
cluded in  November,  1870,  it  was  agreed  that  the  North  German  Con- 
federation should  be  replaced  by  a  German  Empire,  and  that  for  the 
title  of  President,  borne  by  the  Prussian  sovereign,  should  be  sub- 
stituted that  of  Deutscher  Kaiser,  German  Emperor.  January  18, 
1871,  at  Versailles,  William,  king  of  Prussia  and  President  of  the  Con- 
federation, was  formally  proclaimed  German  Emperor.  The  siege  of 
Paris  was  at  the  time  still  in  progress,  and  the  treaty  of  Frankfort,  by 
which  peace  with  France  was  concluded,  was  not  signed  until  the 
following  May.1 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  the  founding  of  the  Empire  see  B.  E.  Howard,  The  Ger- 
man Empire  (New  York,  1906),  Chap,  i;  E.  Henderson,  Short  History  of  Germany 
(New  York,  1906),  Chaps.  8-10;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chaps.  15-17, 
XII.,  Chap.  6;  and  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Gen6rale,  XI.,  Chap.  8.  A  very 
good  book  is  G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Refounding  of  the  German  Empire,  1848-1871 
(2d  ed.,  London,  1904).  More  extended  presentation  of  German  history  in  the 
period  1815-1871  will  be  found  in  A.  Stern,  Geschichte  Europas  seit  den  VertSgen 
von  1815  bis  zum  Frankfurter  Frieden  von  1871,  6  vols.  (Berlin,  1894-1911), 
extending  at  present  to  1848;  C.  F.  H.  Bulle,  Geschichte  der  neuesten  Zeit,  4  vols. 
(Leipzig,  1886-1887),  covering  the  years  1815-1885;  H.  G.  Treitschke,  Deutsche 
Geschichte  im  Neunzehnten  Jahrhundert,  5  vols.  (Leipzig,  1879-1894),  covering 
the  period  to  1848;  H.  von  Sybel,  Die  Begriindung  des  deutschen  Reiches  durch 
Wilhelm  I.  (Munich  and  Leipzig,  1890),  and  in  English  translation  under  title  of 
The  Founding  of  the  German  Empire  (New  York,  1890);  H.  von  Zwiedeneck- 
Sudenhorst,  Deutsche  Geschichte  von  der  Auflosung  d.  alten  bis  zur  Errichtung  d. 
neuen  Kaiserreichs  (Stuttgart,  1903-1905);  and  M.  L.  Van  Deventer,  Cinquante 
anne*es  de  1'histoire  fede"rale  de  1'Allemagne  (Brussels,  1870).  A  book  of  some  value 
is  A.  Malet,  The  Overthrow  of  the  Germanic  Confederation  by  Prussia  in  1866 
(London,  1870).  P.  Bigelow,  History  of  the  German  Struggle  for  Liberty  (New 
York,  1005)  is  readable,  but  not  wholly  reliable.  An  excellent  biography  of  Bis- 
marck is  that  by  Headlam  (New  York,  1899).  For  full  bibliography  see  Cambridge 
Modem  History,  X.,  826-832;  XI.,  879-886,  893-898;  XII.,  869-875. 


202  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

III.  THE  CONSTITUTION:  NATURE  OF  THE  EMPIRE 

211.  The  Constitution  Framed.  — As  ordained  in  the  treaties  of 
November,  1870,  ratified  subsequently  by  the  Bundesrath  and  the 
Bundestag  of  the  North  German  Confederation,  and  by  the  legislative 
assemblies  of  the  four  incoming  states,  the  German  Empire  came 
legally  into  existence  January  i,  1871.    It  consisted  fundamentally  of 
the  Confederation,  which  in  the  process  of  expansion  did  not  lose  its 
corporate  identity,  together  with  the  four  states,  whose  treaties  bound 
them  severally  to  it.    The  Bund  was  conceived  of  technically,  not  as 
replaced  by,  but  rather  as  perpetuated  in,  the  new  Empire.     The 
accession  of  the  four  southern  states,  however,  involved  of  necessity  a 
considerable  modification  of  the  original  character  of  the  affiliation; 
and  the  innovations  that  were  introduced  called  for  a  general  recon- 
stitution  of  the  fundamental  law  upon  which  the  enlarged  structure 
was  to  be  grounded. 

The  elements  at  hand  for  the  construction  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Empire  were  four:  (i)  the  constitution  of  the  North  German  Con- 
federation, in  operation  since  1867;  (2)  the  treaties  of  November  15, 
1870,  between  the  Confederation,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  grand- 
duchies  of  Baden  and  Hesse  on  the  other;  (3)  the  treaty  of  Novem- 
ber 23,  1870,  by  which  was  arranged  the  adhesion  of  the  kingdom  of 
Bavaria;  and  (4)  the  treaty  of  November  25,  1870,  between  the  Bund, 
Baden,  and  Hesse,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  kingdom  of  Wiirttemberg 
on  the  other.  Each  of  these  treaties  stipulated  the  precise  conditions 
under  which  the  new  affiliation  should  be  maintained,  these  stipula- 
tions comprising,  in  effect,  so  many  projected  amendments  of  the 
original  constitution  of  the  Bund.1  At  the  initiative  of  the  Emperor 
there  was  prepared,  early  in  1871,  a  revised  draft  of  this  constitution, 
and  in  it  were  incorporated  such  modifications  as  were  rendered  nec- 
essary by  the  adhesion  of  the  southern  states  and  the  creation  of  the 
Imperial  title.  March  31  the  Reichstag  was  convened  in  Berlin  and 
before  it  was  laid  forthwith  the  constitutional  projel,  to  which  the 
Bundesrath  had  already  given  its  assent.  April  14  the  instrument 
was  approved  by  the  popular  chamber,  and  two  days  later  it  was 
promulgated  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 

212.  Contents  of  the  Instrument. — As  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
its  framers,  the  new  constitution  comprised  a  judicious  amalgamation 
of  the  various  fundamental  documents  that  have  been  mentioned, 
i.  e.,  the  constitution  of  the  Confederation  and  the  treaties.    Within 

1  The  first  three  of  these  treaties  were  concluded  at  Versailles;  the  fourth  was 
signed  at  Berlin. 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  203 

the  scope  of  its  seventy-eight  articles  most  subjects  which  are  dealt 
with  ordinarily  in  such  instruments  find  ample  place:  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  legislative  power;  the  composition,  organization,  and 
procedure  of  the  legislative  chambers;  the  privileges  and  powers  of  the 
executive;  the  adjustment  of  disputes  and  the  punishment  of  offenses 
against  the  national  authority;  the  process  of  constitutional  amend- 
ment. It  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  German  constitution,  however,  that 
it  contains  elaborate  provisions  relating  to  a  variety  of  things  con- 
cerning which  constitutions,  as  a  rule,  are  silent.  There  is  an  extended 
section  upon  customs  and  commerce;  another  upon  railways;  another 
upon  posts  and  telegraphs;  another  upon  navigation;  another  upon 
finance;  and  an  especially  detailed  one  relating  to  the  military  or- 
ganization of  the  realm.  In  part,  the  elaboration  of  these  essentially 
legislative  subjects  within  the  constitution  was  determined  by  the 
peculiarly  federal  character  of  the  Empire,  by  which  was  entailed  the 
necessity  of  a  minute  enumeration  of  powers.  In  a  greater  measure, 
however,  it  arose  from  the  underlying  purpose  of  Bismarck  and  of 
William  I.  to  smooth  the  way  for  the  conversion  of  Germany  into  the 
premier  militant  power  of  Europe.  Beyond  a  guarantee  of  a  common 
citizenship  for  all  Germany  and  of  equal  protection  for  all  citizens 
as  against  foreign  powers,  the  constitution  contains  little  that  relates 
to  the  status  or  privileges  of  the  individual.  There  is  in  it  no  bill 
of  rights,  and  it  makes  no  mention  of  abstract  principles.  Among 
instruments  of  its  kind,  none  is  of  a  more  thoroughly  practical 
character.1 

213.  Federal  Character  of  the  Empire. — The  political  system  of 
Germany  to-day  is  the  product  of  centuries  of  particularistic  state- 
craft, capped,  in  1871,  by  a  partial  centralization  of  sovereign  organs 
and  powers.  The  Empire  is  composed  of  twenty-five  states:  the  four 
kingdoms  of  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wiirttemberg;  the  six 
grand-duchies  of  Baden,  Hesse,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Saxe- Weimar, 
Mecklenburg-Strelitz,  and  Oldenburg;  the  five  duchies  of  Brunswick, 
Saxe-Meiningen,  Saxe-Altenburg,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  and  Anhalt; 

1  The  text  of  the  constitution,  in  German,  is  printed  in  A.  L.  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties  in  Continental  Europe,  2  vols.  (Boston,  1896),  II.,  355-377, 
and  in  Laband,  Deutsches  Reichsstaatsrecht,  411-428;  in  English,  in  W.  F.  Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  2  vols.  (Chicago,  1909),  L,  325-351,  and  in  Howard,  The 
German  Empire,  403-435.  Carefully  edited  German  texts  are:  L.  von  Ronne,  Ver- 
fassung  des  deutschen  Reiches  (8th  ed.,  Berlin,  1899);  A.  Arndt,  Verfassung  des 
deutschen  Reiches  (Berlin,  1902).  On  the  formation  of  the  Imperial  constitution 
see  A.  Lebon,  Les  origines  de  la  constitution  allemande,  in  Annales  de  I'ficole  Libre 
des  Sciences  Politiques,  July,  1888;  ibid.,  fitudes  sur  1'Allemagne  politique  (Paris, 
1890). 


204  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  seven  principalities  of  Schwarzburg-Sonderhausen,  Schwarzburg- 
Rudolstadt,  Waldeck,  Reuss  Alterer  Linie,  Reuss  Jungerer  Linie, 
Lippe,  and  Schaumburg-Lippe;  and  the  three  free  cities  of  Hamburg, 
Bremen,  and  Liibeck.  These  states  vary  in  size  from  Prussia,  with 
134,616  square  miles,  to  Bremen,  with  99;  and  in  population,  from 
Prussia,  with  40,163,333,  to  Schaumburg-Lippe,  with  46,650.  There 
is,  in  addition,  the  Reichsland,  or  Imperial  domain,  of  Alsace-Lorraine, 
whose  status  until  1911  was  that  of  a  purely  dependent  territory, 
but  which  by  act  of  the  year  mentioned  was  elevated  to  a  condition 
of  quasi-statehood.1 

Prior  to  the  formation  in  1867,  of  the  North  German  Confedera- 
tion, each  of  the  twenty-five  states  was  sovereign  and  essentially 
independent.  Each  had  its  own  governmental  establishment,  and  in 
many  instances  the  existing  political  system  was  of  considerable 
antiquity.  With  the  organization  of  the  Bund,  those  states  which 
were  identified  with  the  federation  yielded  their  independence,  and 
presumably  their  sovereignty;  and  with  the  establishment  of  the 
Empire,  all  gave  up  whatever  claim  they  as  yet  maintained  to  absolute 
autonomy.  Both  the  Bund  and  the  Empire  were  creations,  strictly 
speaking,  of  the  states,  not  of  the  people;  and,  to  this  day,  as  one  writer 
has  put  it,  the  Empire  is  "not  a  juristic  person  composed  of  fifty-six 
million  members,  but  of  twenty-five  members." 2  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  not  what  the  old  Confederation  of  1815  was,  i.  e.,  a 
league  of  princes.  It  is  a  state  established  by,  and  composed  of, 
states.3 

1  See  p.  285. 

2  P.  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  I.,  91. 

3  On  the  more  purely  juristic  aspects  of  the  Empire  the  best  work  in  English  is 
Howard,  The  German  Empire  (Chap.  2,  on  "The  Empire  and  the  Individual 
States").     A  very  useful  volume  covering  the  governments  of  Empire  and  states 
is  Combes  de  Lestrade,  Les  monarchies  de  1'Empire  allemand  (Paris,  1904).     The 
monumental  German  treatise  is  P.  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches 
(4th  ed.,  Tubingen,  1901),  in  four  volumes.    There  is  a  six- volume  French  transla- 
tion of  this  work,  Le  droit  public  de  L'Empire  allemand  (Paris,  1900-1904).     Other 
German  works  of  value  are:  O.  Mayer,  Deutsches  Verwaltungsrecht  (Leipzig,  1895- 
1896);  P.  Zorn,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches  (2d  ed.,  Berlin,  1895-1897); 
and  A.  Arndt,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches  (Berlin,  1901).    There  is  a 
four- volume  French  translation  of  Mayer's  important  work,  under  the  title  Le 
droit  administratif  allemand  (Paris,  1903-1906).      Two  excellent  brief  German 
treatises  are:  P.  Laband,  Deutsches  Reichsstaatsrecht  (3d  ed.,  Tiibingen,  1907), 
and  Hue  de  Grais,  Handbuch  der  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  und  dem 
deutschen  Reiche  (i8th  ed.,  Berlin,  1907).    The  most  recent  work  upon  the  sub- 
ject is  F.  Fleiner,  Institutionen  des  deutschen  Verwaltungsrechts  (Tiibingen,  1911). 
A  suggestive  monograph  is  J.  du  Buy,  Two  Aspects  of  the  German  Constitution 
(New  Haven,  1894). 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  205 


IV.  THE  EMPIRE  AND  THE  STATES 

(2 14J  Sovereignty  and  the  Division  of  Powers. — The  Germans  are 
noVtnemselves  altogether  agreed  concerning  the  nature  and  precise 
location  of  sovereignty  within  the  Empire,  but  it  is  reasonably  clear 
that  sovereignty,  in  the  ultimate  meaning  of  that  much  misused 
term,  is  vested  in  the  government  of  the  Empire,  and  not  in  that  of  any 
state.  The  embodiment  of  that  sovereignty,  as  will  appear  sub- 
sequently, is  not  the  national  parliament,  nor  yet  the  Emperor,  but 
the  Bundesrath,  which  represents  the  "totality"  of  the  affiliated 
governments.1  As  in  the  United  States,  Switzerland,  and  federal 
nations  generally,  there  is  a  division  of  powers  of  government  between 
the  central  governmental  establishment  and  the  states.  The  powers 
of  the  Imperial  government,  it  is  important  to  observe,  are  specifically 
enumerated;  those  of  the  states  are  residual.  It  is  within  the  com- 
petence of  the  Imperial  government  to  bring  about  an  enlargement  of 
the  powers  that  have  been  confided  to  it;  but  until  it  does  so  in  any 
particular  direction  the  power  of  the  state  governments  in  that  direc- 
tion is  unlimited.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  a  considerable  field  of 
legislative  activity — in  respect  to  citizenship,  tariffs,  weights,  meas- 
ures, coinage,  patents,  military  and  naval  establishment  of  the  Empire, 
etc. — in  which  the  Empire,  by  virtue  of  constitutional  stipulation, 
possesses  exclusive  power  to  act.2  On  the  other,  there  is  a  no  less 
extensive  domain  reserved  entirely  to  the  states — the  determination 
of  their  own  forms  of  government,  of  laws  of  succession,  of  relations 
of  church  and  state,  of  questions  pertaining  to  their  internal  adminis- 
tration; the  framing  of  their  own  budgets,  police  regulations,  highway 
laws  and  laws  relating  to  land  tenure;  the  control  of  public  instruc- 
tion. Between  lies  a  broad  and  shifting  area,  which  each  may  enter, 
but  within  which  the  Imperial  authority,  hi  so  far  as  is  warranted  by 
the  constitution,  must  be  accorded  precedence  over  the  authority  of  a 
state.  "The  matters  over  which  the  states  preserve  control,"  says 
a  great  German  jurist,  "cannot  be  separated  completely  from  those 
to  which  extends  the  competence  of  the  Empire.  The  various  powers 
of  government  are  intimately  related  the  one  to  another.  They  run 
together  and  at  the  same  time  impose  mutual  checks  in  so  many  ways, 
and  are  so  interlaced,  that  one  cannot  hope  to  set  them  off  by  a  line  of 
demarcation,  or  to  set  up  among  them  a  Chinese  wall  of  division.  In 

1  Howard,  German  Empire,  21. 

9  Matters  placed  under  the  supervision  of  the  Empire  and  made  subject  to  Im- 
perial legislation  are  enumerated  in  the  sixteen  sections  of  Article  4  of  the  constitu- 
tion. Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  327-328. 


206  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

every  sphere  of  their  activity  the  states  encounter  a  superior  power 
to  which  they  are  obliged  to  submit.  They  are  free  to  move  only  in 
the  circle  which  Imperial  law-making  leaves  open  to  them.  That 
circle  does  exist.  It  is  delimited,  but  not  wholly  occupied,  by  the 
Empire.  ...  In  a  certain  sense  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  only  by 
sufferance  of  the  Empire  that  the  states  maintain  their  political  rights 
at  all,  and  that,  at  best,  their  tenure  is  precarious."  l 

In  passing,  it  may  be  observed  that  there  is,  in  fact,  a  distinct 
tendency  toward  the  reduction  of  the  spheres  of  authority  which 
formerly  were  left  to  the  states.  One  of  the  means  by  which  this 
has  been  brought  about  is  the  establishment  of  uniform  codes  of 
law  throughout  the  Empire,  containing  regulations  respecting  a 
multitude  of  things  which  otherwise  would  have  been  regulated  by 
the  states  alone.  Most  important  among  these  is  the  great  Civil 
Code,  which  went  into  effect  January  i,  1900.  Another  means  to 
the  same  end  is  the  increase  in  recent  years  of  Imperial  legislation 
relating  to  workingmen's  insurance,  factory  regulations,  industrial 
conditions,  and  other  matters  of  a  social  and  economic  nature.  Not 
infrequently  in  recent  times  have  the  states,  or  some  of  them,  raised 
protest  against  this  centralizing  tendency,  and  especially  against 
the  "  Prussianization "  of  the  Empire  which  it  seems  clearly  to  in- 
volve. In  many  states,  especially  those  to  the  south  of  the  Main, 
the  separatist  tradition  is  still  very  strong.  In  Bavaria,  more  than 
anywhere  else,  is  this  true,  and  in  1903  the  new  Bavarian  premier, 
Baron  Podevils,  was  able  to  arouse  genuine  enthusiasm  for  his  govern- 
ment by  a  solemn  declaration  before  the  diet  that  he  and  his  colleagues 
would  combat  with  all  their  might  "any  attempt  to  shape  the  future 
of  the  Empire  on  lines  other  than  the  federative  basis  laid  down  in 
the  Imperial  constitution." 

215.  The  Interlacing  of  Governmental  Agencies. — The  functions  of  a 
legislative  character  which  are  delegated  to  the  Imperial  government 
are  numerous  and  comprehensive,  and  in  practice  they  tend  all 
the  while  to  be  increased.  Those  of  an  executive  and  judicial  char- 
acter are  very  much  more  restricted.  In  respect  to  foreign  relations, 
the  navy,  and  the  postal  and  telegraph  service,  administration  is 
absolutely  centralized  in  the  organs  of  the  Empire;  in  respect  to 
everything  else,  administrative  functions  are  performed  entirely,  or 
almost  entirely,  through  the  agency  of  the  states.  In  the  United 
States  the  federal  government  is  essentially  complete  within  itself.  It 
has  its  own  law-makers,  administrators,  and  judges,  who  carry  on  the 
national  government  largely  independently  of  the  governing  agencies 
1  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches  (2d  ed.),  I.,  102-103. 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  207 

of  the  various  states.  In  Germany,  where  the  state  occupies  in  some 
respects  a  loftier  position  in  the  federation  than  does  its  counterpart 
in  America,  the  central  government,  in  respect  to  all  save  the  fields 
that  have  been  mentioned,  relies  for  the  execution  of  its  measures 
upon  the  officials  of  the  states.  The  Empire  establishes  taxes  and 
customs  duties,  but  the  imposts  are  collected  by  state  authorities. 
Similarly,  justice  is  rendered,  not  in  the  name  of  the  Empire,  but 
in  the  name  of  the  state,  and  by  judges  in  the  employ  of  the  state. 
In  respect  to  machinery,  the  Imperial  government  is,  therefore, 
but  a  part  of  a  government.  Alone,  it  could  not  be  made  to  operate. 
It  lacks  a  judiciary;  likewise  the  larger  portion  of  the  administrative 
agencies  without  which  mere  powers  of  legislative  enactment  are  futile. 
To  put  the  matter  succinctly,  the  working  government  of  the  Empire 
comprises  far  more  than  the  organs  and  functions  that  are  purely 
Imperial;  it  comprises  the  federal  organs  and  functions  possessed  by 
the  individual  states  as  well.1 

216.  The  States:  the  Prussian  Hegemony. — Legally,  the  union 
of  the  German  states  is  indestructible.  The  Imperial  government 
is  vested  with  no  power  to  expel  a  state,  to  unite  it  with  another 
state,  to  divide  it,  or  in  any  way  to  alter  its  status  in  the  federation. 
On  the  other  hand,  no  state  possesses  a  right  to  secede,  or  to  modify 
its  powers  or  obligations  within  the  Empire.  If  a  state  violates  its 
obligations  or  refuses  to  be  bound  by  the  authority  of  the  Empire, 
the  federal  army,  on  decision  of  the  Bundesrath,  may  be  mobilized 
by  the  Emperor  against  it.2 

Among  the  states,  however,  there  is  a  glaring  lack  of  equality  of 
status  and  privilege.  When  the  Empire  was  formed  the  component 
states  differed  widely  in  area,  population,  and  traditional  rights, 
and  there  was  no  attempt  to  reduce  them  to  a  footing  that  should 
be  absolutely  uniform.  Prussia,  besides  comprising  the  moving  spirit 
in  the  new  affiliation,  contained  a  population  considerably  in  excess  of 
that  of  the  other  twenty-four  states  combined.  The  consequence  was 
that  Prussia  became  inevitably  the  preponderating  power  in  the 
Empire.  The  king  of  Prussia  is  ex-officio  German  Emperor;  the 
Prussian  votes  in  the  Bundesrath  can  defeat  any  proposed  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  and  likewise  any  measure  looking  toward 
a  change  in  the  army,  the  navy,  or  the  taxes;  and  Prussia  controls 
the  chairmanship  of  all  standing  committees  in  the  Bundesrath.3 

1  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §  7-10;  Lebon,  fitudes  sur 
1'Allemagne  politique,  93-104. 

•Art.  19.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  332. 

1  A.  Lebon,  La  constitution  allemande  et  1'he'ge'moine  prussienne,  in  Annales  de 
I'&cole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Jan.,  1887. 


208  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

217.  Military  Arrangements. — Other  privileges  Prussia  possesses  by 
virtue,  not  of  the  constitution,  but  of  agreements  with  her  sister  states. 
The  most  important  of  these  relates  to  the  army.    By  the  constitution  it 
was  provided  at  the  outset  that  the  armed  forces  of  the  Empire  should 
be  organized  into  a  single  establishment,  to  be  governed  by  Imperial  law 
and  to  be  under  the  supreme  command  of  the  Emperor.1    In  respect  to 
the  appointment  of  minor  officers,  and  some  other  matters,  powers  of 
jurisdiction  were  left,  however,  to  the  individual  states.    These  powers 
were  in  themselves  worth  little,  and  in  the  course  of  time  all  of  the 
states  save  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wiirttemberg  were  brought  to  the 
point  of  yielding  to  Prussia  the  slender  military  authority  that  remained 
to  them.2    In  this  manner  Prussia  acquired  the  right  to  recruit,  drill, 
and  officer  the  contingents  of  twenty-one  states — a  right  which  appreci- 
ably increased  her  already  preponderant  authority  in  all  matters  of  a 
military  character.    Technically,  there  is  no  German  army,  just  as  there 
is  no  German  minister  of  war.    Each  state  maintains  its  own  contingent, 
and  the  contingent  maintained  by  the  state  is  stationed  normally  within 
that  state.    By  virtue  of  the  treaties,  however,  all  contingents  save  those 
of  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wiirttemburg  are  administered  precisely  as  if 
they  comprised  integral  parts  of  the  Prussian  establishment.3 

218.  The  Sonderrechte. — In   the   possession   of   special   privileges 
Prussia,  however,  is  not  alone.    When  the  states  of  the  south  became 
members  of  the  federation  all  of  them  stipulated  certain  Sonderrechte, 
or  reserved  rights,  whose  acknowledgment  was  made  the  condition  upon 
which  they  came  into  the  union.    Wiirttemberg  and  Bavaria,  for  ex- 
ample, retain  on  this  basis  the  administration  of  posts  and  telegraphs 
within  their  boundaries,  and  Wiirttemberg,  Bavaria,  and  Baden  pos- 
sess the  exclusive  right  to  tax  beers  and  brandies  produced  within 
each  state  respectively.    Bavaria  retains  the  administration  of  her  own 
railways.    At  one  time  it  was  feared  that  the  special  privileges  accorded 
the  southern  states  would  constitute  a  menace  to  the  stability  of  the 
Empire.    Such  apprehension,  however,  has  proved  largely  groundless.4 
In  this  connection  it  is  worth  pointing  out  that  under  the  Imperial  con- 
stitution the  right  to  commission  and  despatch  diplomatic  (though  not 
consular)  agents  is  not  withdrawn  from  the  individual  states.    In  most 
instances,   however,   the  maintenance  of  diplomatic  representatives 

1  Arts.  61,  63,  64.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  345-347. 

2  The  first  of  the  Prussian  military  treaties,  that  concluded  with  Saxe-Coburg- 
Gotha,  dates  from  1861;  the  last,  that  with  Brunswick,  from  1885. 

3  Howard,  The  German  Empire,  Chap.  12;  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deut- 
schen  Reiches,   §§95-113;   C.   Morhain,  De    Pempire    allemand   (Paris,   1886), 
Chap.  15. 

4  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  11-13. 


THE  EMPIRE  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTION  209 

abroad  has  long  since  been  discontinued.  Saxony,  Bavaria,  and 
Wiirttemberg  retain  to-day  only  their  posts  at  Vienna,  St.  Petersburg, 
and  the  Vatican. 

219.  Constitutional  Amendment. — It  is  stipulated  within  the  Im- 
perial constitution  that  amendments  may  be  adopted  by  a  process 
identical  with  that  of  ordinary  legislative  enactment,  save  that  an 
amendment  against  which  as  many  as  fourteen  votes  are  cast  in  the 
Bundesrath  is  to  be  considered  rejected.  The  practical  operation  of  this 
last-mentioned  provision  is  to  confer  upon  Prussia,  possessing  seventeen 
votes  and  controlling  twenty  in  the  federal  chamber,  an  absolute  veto 
upon  all  propositions  looking  toward  constitutional  change.  Clauses 
of  the  constitution  whereby  special  rights  are  secured  to  particular 
states  may  be  amended  only  with  the  consent  of  the  states  affected.1 
In  1873,  1888,  and  1893  the  text  of  the  constitution  was  amended,  and 
upon  several  other  occasions  important  modifications  have  been  in- 
troduced in  the  working  constitution  without  the  formality  of  altering 
the  letter  of  the  instrument. 

1  Art.  78.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  351. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE    IMPERIAL    GOVERNMENT:    EMPEROR,   CHANCELLOR,   AND 

BUNDESRATH 

I.   THE  EMPEROR 

220.  Status  and  Privileges. — Under  the  North  German  Confederation 
of  1867-1871  the  king  of  Prussia  was  vested  with  supreme  command  of 
the  federal  navy,  the  functions  of  Bundesfeldherr,  or  commander-in-chief 
of  the  federal  army,  and  a  large  group  of  purely  governmental  powers, 
including  the  summoning,  proroguing,  and  adjourning  of  the  Bundesrath 
and  Bundestag,  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  the  Chancellor  and 
of  other  federal  officials,  the  publication  of  the  federal  laws,  and  a  general 
supervision  of  the  federal  administration.  These  powers  were  exercised 
by  the  king  in  the  capacity  of  Bundes presidium,  or  chief  magistrate, 
of  the  federation.  Upon  the  accession  of  the  south  German  states  in 
1870-1871  Bismarck  and  his  royal  master  determined  to  bring  once  more 
into  use  in  Germany  the  title  of  Emperor,  although  between  the  empire 
which  was  now  assuming  form  and  the  empire  which  had  been  termin- 
ated in  1806  there  was  recognized  to  be  no  historical  connection.  The 
constitution  of  April  16,  1871,  accordingly  stipulates  that  "to  the  king 
of  Prussia  shall  belong  the  presidency  of  the  Confederation,  and  he 
shall  bear  the  title  of  Deuischer  Kaiser  (German  Emperor)."  * 

The  revival  of  the  Imperial  title  and  dignity  involved,  and  was 
intended  to  involve,  no  modification  of  the  status  of  the  Bundespraesi- 
dent,  save  in  respect  to  his  official  designation  and  certain  of  his  personal 
privileges.  His  relations  with  the  states  and  with  the  princes  of  the 
federation  continued  precisely  as  before.  The  powers  of  the  Kaiser 
were,  and  are,  the  powers  of  the  old  President,  and  nothing  in  excess 
of  those.  The  title  might  be  taken  to  imply  a  monarchy  of  the  custom- 
ary sort;  but  properly  it  does  not.  There  is  no  Imperial  crown,  no 
Imperial  civil  list,  no  Imperial  "office"  as  such.  The  king  of  Prussia, 
in  addition  to  his  purely  Prussian  prerogatives,  is  by  the  Imperial  con- 

1  Art.  ii.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  330.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
title  is  not  "Emperor  of  Germany."  The  phrase  selected  was  intended  to  denote 
that  the  Emperor  is  only  primus  inter  pares  in  a  confederation  of  territorial  sover- 
eigns (Landesherren.)  He  is  a  territorial  sovereign  only  in  Prussia. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  211 

stitution  vested  with  the  added  prerogative  of  bearing  the  Kaiser 
title  and  of  exercising  those  powers  which  under  the  constitution  and 
laws  are  conferred  upon  the  bearer  of  that  title.  Apart  from  the  Prussian 
crown  the  Imperial  function  does  not  exist;  from  which  it  follows  that 
there  is  no  law  of  Imperial  succession  apart  from  the  Prussian  law  regu- 
lating the  tenure  of  the  Prussian  throne,1  and  that  in  the  event  of  a 
regency  in  Prussia  the  regent  would,  ipso  fac^o,  exercise  the  functions 
of  Emperor.  Chief  among  the  privileges  which  belong  to  the  Kaiser 
as  such  are  those  of  special  protection  of  person  and  family  and  of 
absolute  exemption  from  legal  process.  Responsible  to  no  superior 
earthly  authority,  the  Emperor  may  not  be  brought  for  trial  before  any 
tribunal,  nor  be  removed  from  office  by  any  judicial  proceeding.  As- 
saults upon  his  person  are  punishable  with  death,  and  attacks,  in  speech 
or  writing,  which  are  adjudged  to  constitute  Use  majeste  are  subject 
to  special  and  severe  penalties.2 

221.  Powers:  Military  and  Foreign  Affairs.  The  king  of  Prussia 
being  ipso  facto  Emperor,  the  royal  and  Imperial  functions  which  are 
combined  in  the  hands  of  the  one  sovereign  are  of  necessity  closely 
inter-related.  There  are  powers  which  belong  to  William  II.  to-day 
solely  by  virtue  of  his  position  as  king  of  Prussia.  There  are  others, 
of  an  Imperial  nature,  which  he  possesses  by  reason  of  the  fact  that, 
being  king  of  Prussia,  he  is  also  Emperor.  In  practice,  if  not  in  law, 
there  are  still  others  which  arise  from  the  thoroughgoing  preponderance 
of  the  Prussian  kingdom  as  a  state  within  the  Empire — the  power, 
in  general,  of  imparting  a  bent  to  Imperial  policy  such  as  would  not  be 
possible  if,  for  example,  the  king  of  Wiirttemberg  were  Emperor,  rather 
than  the  king  of  Prussia. 

The  functions  of  the  Emperor  as  such  are  not  numerous,  but,  so  far 
as  they  go,  they  are  of  fundamental  importance.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Emperor  is  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy.  He  may 
control  the  organization  of  the  Landwehr,or  national  defense;  determine 
the  strength  and  composition  of  the  armed  contingents;  supervise  the 
equipment  and  drilling  of  the  troops;  and  mobilize  the  whole,  or  any 
part,  of  the  forces.3  A  second  group  of  Imperial  functions  are  those 
relating  to  foreign  affairs.  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Emperor," 
says  the  constitution,  "to  represent  the  Empire  among  nations,  to 
declare  war  and  to  conclude  peace  in  the  name  of  the  Empire,  to  enter 
into  alliances  and  other  treaties  with  foreign  countries,  to  accredit 

1  Arts.  53-58  of  the  Prussian  Constitution.    See  p.  253. 

2  R.  C.  Brooks,  Lese  Majeste,  in  The  Bookman,  June,  1904. 

3  Howard,  The  German  Empire,  Chap.  12;  Laband,  Deutsches  Reichsstaats- 
recht,  345-359- 


212  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ambassadors  and  to  receive  them."  1  The  Emperor's  power,  however, 
is  not  in  all  of  these  directions  absolute.  One  important  limitation 
arises  from  the  requirement  that,  under  all  circumstances  save  in  the 
event  of  an  attack  upon  the  federal  territory  or  its  coasts,  war  may  be 
declared  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Bundesrath.  Another  is  that  in 
so  far  as  treaties  with  foreign  countries  relate  to  matters  which  are 
to  be  regulated  by  Imperial  legislation,  "  the  consent  of  the  Bundesrath 
shall  be  required  for  their  conclusion,  and  the  approval  of  the  Reichstag 
shall  be  necessary  to  render  them  valid."  2 

222.  Powers:  Legislation  and  Justice. — A  third  group  of  functions 
has  to  do  with  legislation.    By  the  constitution  the  Emperor  is  vested 
with  the  right  to  convene  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag,  and  to 
open,  adjourn,  and  close  them.3    In  accordance  with  resolutions  of  the 
Bundesrath,  bills  are  laid  before  the  Reicl^stag  in  the  name  of  the 
Emperor;  and  it  is  the  Emperor's  duty  to  prepare  and  publish  the 
laws  of  the  Empire,  as  well  as  to  supervise  their  execution.4   In  so  far  as 
is  permitted  by  the  constitution,  and  by  laws  from  time  to  time  enacted, 
decrees  and  ordinances  may  be  promulgated  by  the  Emperor,  under 
the  countersignature  of  the  Chancellor.     Speaking  strictly,  the  Em- 
peror possesses  no  veto  upon  measures  passed  in  the  Bundesrath  and 
Reichstag,  though  in  practice  he  may  refuse  to  publish  a  law  in  the 
enactment  of  which  he  believes  the  ordinary  formal  requirements  not 
to  have  been  complied  with.    He  may  not  withhold  a  measure  by  reason 
simply  of  its  content. 

The  Emperor  is  vested,  in  the  next  place,  with  certain  prerogatives 
in  relation  to  the  judiciary.  On  motion  of  the  Bundesrath,  he  appoints 
(though  he  may  not  remove)  the  members  of  the  Reichsgericht,  or 
Imperial  Court;  and  by  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  it  is  stipulated 
that  in  cases  in  which  the  Imperial  Court  shall  have  rendered  judgment 
as  a  tribunal  of  first  instance,  the  Emperor  shall  possess  the  power  of 
pardon.  The  pardoning  power  is  extended  likewise  to  cases  adjudged 
in  consular  courts,  prize  courts,  and  other  tribunals  specified  by  law. 

223.  Powers:  Execution  of  the  Law. — Finally,  the  execution  of  the 
laws  is  intrusted  to  the  Emperor  with,  however,  this  limitation,  that, 
under  the  German  system,  the  execution  of  law  is  committed  largely 

1  Art.  ii.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  330. 

2  Art.  n,  clause  3.    Dodd,  I.,  331. 

3  Art.  12.    Ibid. 

4  "The  laws  of  the  Empire  shall  receive  their  binding  force  by  Imperial  promul- 
gation, through  the  medium  of  an  Imperial  Gazette.    If  no  other  time  is  designated 
for  the  published  law  to  take  effect  it  shall  become  effective  on  the  fourteenth  day 
after  its  publication  in  the  Imperial  Gazette  at  Berlin."    Art.  2.    Dodd,  Modem 
Constitutions,  I.,  326. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  213 

to  the  states  and  the  officials  thereof,  so  that  the  measures  of  the  Imperial 
Government  whose  execution  is  not  specifically  provided  for  by  the 
constitution  and  the  laws  are  presumably  carried  into  effect  by  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  states.  There  are,  however,  Imperial 
agents  whose  business  it  is  to  inspect  the  execution  of  Imperial  measures 
by  the  states  and  to  report  to  the  Emperor  infractions  or  omissions. 
When  such  delinquencies  are  adjudged  sufficiently  serious,  the  Emperor 
may  bring  them  to  the  attention  of  the  Bundesrath,  and  that  body  may 
order  an  "execution,  "i.e.,  a  show  of  military  force  to  coerce  the 
erring  state.  The  carrying  out  of  the  "  execution  "  is  intrusted  to  the 
Emperor.1  Incident  to  the  general  executive  function  is  the  power  to 
make  appointments.  By  the  constitution  it  is  stipulated  that  the 
Emperor,  in  addition  to  appointing  the  Imperial  Chancellor,  shall 
appoint  Imperial  officials,  require  of  them  the  taking  of  an  oath  to  the 
Empire,  and,  when  necessary,  dismiss  them.2  The  position  which  the 
Chancellor  occupies  in  the  Imperial  administrative  system  is  of  such 
weight  that  the  power  of  appointing  to,  and  of  removing  from,  the 
chancellorship  is  in  itself  of  very  large  importance;  and  the  Kaiser's 
control  of  administration  is  still  further  increased  by  his  power  of  ap- 
pointment and  removal  of  subordinate  officials.3 

II.  THE  CHANCELLOR 

224.  Non-existence  of  a  Parliamentary  System. — Within  the  domain 
of  Imperial  government  the  place  filled  in  other  governmental  sys- 
tems by  a  ministry  or  cabinet  of  some  variety  is  occupied  by  a  single 
official,  the  Reichskanzler,  or  Chancellor.  When  the  Imperial  constitu- 
tion was  framed  it  was  the  intention  of  Bismarck  to  impart  to  the 
Imperial  administration  the  fullest  facility  and  harmony  by  providing 
the  Chancellor  with  no  colleagues,  and  by  making  that  official  respon- 
sible solely  to  the  Emperor.  Such  a  scheme  would  have  meant,  ob- 
viously, a  thoroughgoing  centralization  in  all  Imperial  affairs  and  the 
utter  negation  of  anything  in  the  way  of  a  parliamentary  system  of 
government.  The  more  liberal  members  of  the  constituent  Reichstag 

1  Art.  19.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  332. 

2  Art.  1 8.    Ibid. 

3  Art.  19.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  332.    On  the  status  and  functions 
of  the  German  Emperor  see  Howard,  The  German  Empire,  Chap.  3;  J.  W.  Burgess, 
The  German  Emperor,  in  Political  Science  Quarterly,  June,  1888;  Laband,  Das 
Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  24-26;  ibid.,  Das  deutsche  Kaiserthum 
(Strassburg,  1896);  R.  Fischer,  Das  Recht  des  deutschen  Kaisers  (Berlin,  1895); 
K.  Binding,  Die  rechtliche  Stellung  des  Kaisers  (Dresden,  1898);  R.  Steinbach, 
Die  rechtliche  Stellung  des  deutschen  Kaisers  verglichen  mit  des  Prasidenten  der 
Vereinigten  Staaten  von  Amerika  (Leipzig,  1903). 


214  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

compelled  a  modification  of  the  original  Bismarckian  programme;  so 
that  when  the  constitution  assumed  its  permanent  form  it  contained  not 
merely  the  stipulation  that  "the  Imperial  Chancellor,  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Emperor,  shall  preside  in  the  Bundesrath  and  supervise  the 
conduct  of  its  business,"  but  the  significant  provision  that  "the  decrees 
and  ordinances  of  the  Emperor  shall  be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Empire, 
and  shall  require  for  their  validity  the  counter-signature  of  the  Imperial 
Chancellor,  who  thereby  assumes  the  responsibility  for  them."1 

Nominally,  this  article  establishes  the  principle  of  ministerial  re- 
sponsibility, even  though  there  is  but  a  single  minister  to  be  made 
responsible.  Practically,  it  does  nothing  of  the  sort,  for  the  reason  that 
no  machinery  whatever  is  provided  for  the  enforcing  of  responsibility. 
There  is  not  even  specification  of  the  authority  to  which  responsibility 
shall  lie.  The  article  stipulating  responsibility,  appropriated  from  the 
constitution  of  Prussia,  was  merely  tacked  on  the  Imperial  instrument 
and  has  never  been  brought  into  organic  relation  with  it.  In  practice 
the  Imperial  Government  has  always  been  able  to  do  business  without 
for  a  moment  admitting  the  right  of  the  Reichstag  to  unseat  the  Chan- 
cellor by  an  adverse  vote.  The  Chancellor  may  be  criticised  and  the 
proposals  which  he  introduces  may  be  defeated;  expediency  may  even 
require  his  removal  by  his  Imperial  master;  but  he  has  never  felt  obliged 
to  retire  merely  by  reason  of  lack  of  support  in  the  legislative  chamber, 
as  would  a  British  or  a  French  minister  similarly  situated.  This  does 
not  mean,  of  course,  that  the  blocking  of  a  governmental  programme 
may  not  tend  to  produce  the  practical  effect  of  a  parliamentary  vote  of 
"want  of  confidence."  It  means  simply  that  the  Chancellor,  in  such 
a  case,  is  under  no  admitted  obligation  to  resign.  The  retirement  of 
Chancellor  von  Biilow  during  the  crisis  of  1908-1909  was  more  nearly 
involuntary  than  that  of  any  one  of  his  three  predecessors,  but  persons 
most  conversant  with  the  circumstances  agree  that  there  was  involved 
in  it  no  intention  of  concession  to  the  parliamentary  principle.  The 
Chancellor's  fall  was,  in  reality,  only  his  punishment  for  countenancing 
the  popular  indignation  occasioned  by  the  Emperor's  memorable 
Daily  Telegraph  interview,  for  which  the  Chancellor  himself  had  been, 
at  least  technically,  responsible.2 

1  Arts.  15  and  17.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  331. 

2  For  an  excellent  discussion  of  this  general  subject  see  W.  J.  Shepard,  Tend- 
encies toward  Ministerial  Responsibility  in  Germany,  in  American  Political  Science 
Review,  Feb.,  1911.     In  the  course  of  an  impassioned  speech  in  the  Reichstag  in 
1912,  occasioned  by  a  storm  of  protest  against  the  Emperor's  alleged  threat  to 
withdraw   the  newly  granted  constitution  of  Alsace-Lorraine,   Chancellor  von 
Bethmann-Hollweg  stated  the  theory  and  fact  of  the  office  which  he  holds  in  these 
sentences:  "No  situation  has  been  created  for  which  I  cannot  take  the  responsi- 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  215 

There  is  a  clause  of  the  constitution1  which  confers  upon  the  Chan- 
cellor the  right  to  delegate  the  power  to  represent  him  to  any  other 
member  of  the  Bundesrath;  whence  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  Chan- 
cellor must  be  himself  a  member  of  that  body.  The  relations  of  the 
Empire  and  the  Prussian  kingdom  practically  require,  further,  that 
the  Chancellor  be  identified  with  the  Prussian  contingent  in  the  federal 
chamber.  Since,  however,  the  Emperor,  in  his  capacity  of  king  of 
Prussia,  designates  the  Prussian  delegates  in  that  body,  it  is  open  to 
him  to  make  such  an  appointment  in  this  second  capacity  as  will 
enable  him  when  selecting,  in  his  Imperial  capacity,  a  chancellor  to 
procure  the  services  of  the  man  he  wants. 

225.  Functions:  in  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag. — Speak-    ^J 
ing  broadly,  the  functions  of  the  Chancellor  are  two-fold.    The  first 
arises  from  his  position  within  the  Bundesrath.    Not  only  does  he 
represent  hi  that  body,  as  do  his  Prussian  colleagues,  the  king  of 
Prussia;  he  is  vested  constitutionally  with  the  presidency  of  it  and 

with  the  supervision  of  its  business.    He  determines  the  dates  of  its     <    A     ^ 
sessions.    Through  his  hands  pass  all  communications  and  proposals,  . 
from  the  states  as  well  as  from  the  Reichstag,  addressed  to  it,  and  he  is    n  ' 
its  representative  in  all  of  its  external  relations.    In  the  name  of  the 
Emperor  he  lays  before  the  Reichstag  all  measures  enacted  by  the 
Bundesrath;  and  as  a  member  of  the  Bundesrath,  though  not  as 
Imperial  Chancellor,  he  may  appear  on  the  floor  of  the  Reichstag  to 
advocate  and  explain  proposed  legislation.    Measures  which  have  been 
enacted  into  law  are  binding  only  after  they  have  been  proclaimed  by 
the  Chancellor,  such  proclamation  being  made  regularly  through  the 
official  organ  known  as  the  Reichsgesetzblatt. 

226.  Functions:  Administration. — A  second  function,  so  inextrica- 
bly intertwined  with  those  just  mentioned  as  to  be  in  practice  some- 
times not  clearly  distinguishable  from  them,  is  that  which  arises  from 
the  Chancellor's  position  as  the  principal  administrative  official  of 
the  Empire.    As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  work  of  administration 
under  the  German  system  is  largely  decentralized,  being  left  to  the 
states;  but  the  ultimate  administrative  authority  is  very  highly  cen- 
tralized, being  gathered  in  the  hands  of  the  Chancellor  in  a  measure 
not  paralleled  in  any  other  nation  of  western  Europe.    As  an  adminis- 
trative official  the  Chancellor  has  been  described  with  aptness  as  the 
Emperor's  "other  self."    He  is  appointed  by  the  Emperor;  he  may  be 

bility.   As  long  as  I  stand  in  this  place  I  shield  the  Emperor  (trete  ich  vor  den  Kaiser). 
This  not  for  courtiers'  considerations,  of  which  I  know  nothing,  but  as  in  duty 
bound.    When  I  cannot  satisfy  this  my  duty  you  will  see  me  no  more  in  this  place." 
1  Art.  15,  cl.  2.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  331. 


216  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

dismissed  by  him;  he  performs  his  functions  solely  as  agent  and  as- 
sistant of  the  Emperor;  and,  although  according  to  the  letter  of  the 
constitution  responsible  to  the  Reichstag,  he  is,  in  practice,  responsible 
to  no  one  save  his  Imperial  master. 

Prior  to  1870  the  administrative  functions  of  the  Confederation 
were  vested  in  a  single  department,  the  Bundeskanzleramt,  or  Federal 
Chancery,  which  was  organized  in  three  sections — the  "  central  office," 
the  postal  office,  and  the  bureau  of  telegraphs.  For  the  time  being, 
affairs  pertaining  to  the  army,  the  navy,  and  foreign  relations  were 
confided  to  the  care  of  the  appropriate  ministries  of  Prussia.  In  1870 
there  was  created  a  separate  federal  department  of  foreign  affairs,  and 
in  the  following  year  a  federal  department  of  the  marine.  One  by  one 
other  departments  were  established,  until  in  1879  the  process  was  com- 
pleted by  the  conversion  of  what  remained  of  the  Bundeskanzleramt 
into  a  department  of  the  interior.  The  status  of  these  departments, 
however,  was  from  the  outset  totally  unlike  that  of  the  corresponding 
branches  of  most  governments.  They  were,  and  are,  in  effect  but 
bureaus  of  the  Imperial  Chancellery,  and  their  heads  comprise  in  no 
degree  a  collegiate  ministry  or  cabinet.  Each  official  in  charge  of  a 
department  owes  his  position  absolutely  to  the  Chancellor,  and  is 
responsible,  not  to  the  Reichstag,  nor  yet  to  the  Emperor  directly, 
but  to  the  Chancellor.  Some  of  the  more  important  officials  bear  the 
title  of  "secretary  of  state/'  but  in  any  case  they  are  legally  nothing 
more  than  expert  and  essentially  non-political  functionaries  of  the 
administrative  hierarchy,  answerable  to  the  Chancellor  for  all  that 
they  may  do.1  Of  the  principal  departments  there  are  at  present  seven: 
the  Foreign  Office,  the  Colonial  Office,  the  Imperial  Home  Office,  the 
Department  of  Justice,  the  Imperial  Treasury,  the  Imperial  Admiralty, 
and  the  Imperial  Post-Office.  In  the  nature  of  things  some  are  more 
important  than  others;  and  in  addition  to  them  there  are  several 
Imperial  bureaus,  notably  those  of  Railways,  the  Bank,  and  the  Debt 
Commission.  Throughout  all  branches  of  the  Imperial  administra- 
tive service  appointments  and  dismissals  are  made  regularly  by  the 
Chancellor,  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor,  and  by  the  same  authority  all 
administrative  regulations  are  promulgated.2 

227.  Delegation  of  Powers. — There  are  two  arrangements  in  ac- 

1  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  in  practice,  the  more  important  state 
secretaries  are  apt  to  sustain  a  relation  with  the  other  organs  of  government  which 
is  somewhat  closer  than  might  be  inferred  from  what  has  been  said.  Not  infre- 
quently they  sit  in  the  Bundesrath,  and  are  by  reason  of  that  fact  privileged  to 
defend  their  measures  in  person  on  the  floor  of  the  Reichstag.  Not  infrequently, 
too,  they  are  members  of  the  Prussian  ministry. 

'Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  41,  64-66. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  217 

cordance  with  which  it  is  possible  for  the  functions  of  the  Chancellor 
to  be  vested  in  a  substitute.  By  the  constitution  the  Chancellor  is 
authorized,  as  has  been  observed,  to  delegate  to  any  other  member  of 
the  Bundesrath  the  power  of  representing  him  in  that  body;  and  there 
is  a  special  agreement  to  the  effect  that,  in  such  a  contingency,  should 
no  acceptable  Prussian  substitute  be  available,  the  choice  shall  fall 
on  a  Bavarian.  In  the  second  place,  under  statute  of  March  17,  1878, 
the  Chancellor  is  empowered  to  call  for  the  appointment  of  a  substi- 
tute, or  substitutes,  in  his  capacity  of  Imperial  minister.  The  appoint- 
ment in  such  a  case  is  made,  not  by  the  Chancellor  himself,  but  by 
the  Emperor,  and  there  may  be  designated  either  a  general  substitute 
(Generdstellvertreter)  or  a  substitute  for  the  discharge  of  the  Chan- 
cellor's functions  in  some  particular  department  (Specialstelhertreter).1 
In  the  one  case  there  is  no  limit  upon  the  Emperor's  freedom  of  choice; 
in  the  other,  appointments  must  be  made  from  chiefs  of  the  depart- 
ment or  departments  affected.  The  Chancellor  may  at  any  time 
resume  functions  thus  delegated.2 

III.  THE  BUNDESRATH 

If  the  chancellorship  is  without  a  counterpart  among  modern  govern- 
ments, no  less  so  is  the  Federal  Council,  or  Bundesrath.  No  feature 
of  the  German  political  system  is  more  extraordinary;  none,  as  one 
writer  has  observed,  is  more  thoroughly  native.3  It  is  not  an  "upper 
house,"  nor  even,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  a  deliberative  chamber  at 
all.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  central  institution  of  the  whole  Imperial 
system,  and  as  such  it  is  possessed  of  a  broad  combination  of  functions 
which  are  not  only  legislative,  but  administrative,  consultative,  judi- 
cial, and  diplomatic. 

228.  Composition:  the  Allotment  of  Votes. — The  Bundesrath  is 
composed  of  delegates  appointed  by  the  princes  of  the  "monarchical 
states  and  by  the  senates  of  the  free  cities.  In  the  Imperial  constitu- 
tion it  is  required  that  the  fifty-eight  votes  to  which  the  twenty-five 

1  The  law  of  1878  was  enacted  on  the  occasion  of  Bismarck's  prolonged  absence 
from  Berlin,  during  his  retirement  at  Varzin.    A  Generalstellverlreter  takes  the  title 
of  Reichsvicekanzler,  or  Imperial  Vice-Chancellor. 

2  On  the  status  and  functions  of  the  Chancellor  see  Howard,  The  German  Em- 
pire, Chap.  7;  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §  40;  L.  Dupriez, 
Les  ministres  dans  les  principaux  pays  d'Europe  et  d'Ame"rique,  2  vols.  (Paris, 
1892),  I.,  483-548;  Hensel,  Die  stellung  des  Reichskan^lers  nach  dem  Staats- 
rechte  des  deutschen  Reiches,  in  Hirth,  Annalen  des  deutschen  Reiches,  1882; 
M.  I.  Tambaro,  La  transformation  des  pouvoirs  en  AUemagne,  in  Revue  du  DroU 
Public,  July-Sept.,  1910. 

8  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  L,  259. 


218  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

states  of  the  confederation  are  entitled  shall  be  distributed  in  such  a 
manner  that  Prussia  shall  have  seventeen,  Bavaria  six,  Saxony  four, 
Wiirttemberg  four,  Baden  three,  Hesse  three,  Mecklenberg-Schwerin 
two,  Brunswick  two,  and  the  seventeen  other  states  one  apiece.1  Save 
for  the  increase  of  the  Bavarian  quota  from  four  to  six  and  of  the 
Prussian  from  four  to  seventeen,  these  numbers  were  simply  carried 
over  from  the  Diet  of  the  Confederation  of  1815.  The  Prussian 
increase  arose,  in  1866,  from  the  absorption  of  Hanover,  Hesse  Cassel, 
Holstein-Lauenburg,  Nassau,  and  Frankfort;  the  Bavarian,  from  a 
customs  union  treaty  of  July  8,  1867.  Subsequent  to  the  adoption  of 
the  constitution  of  1871  Prussia  acquired,  by  contract,  the  vote  of  the 
government  of  Waldeck;  also,  through  the  establishment  in  1884-1885 
of  a  perpetual  Prussian  regency  in  Brunswick,  the  two  votes  to  which 
that  state  is  entitled;  so  that  the  total  of  the  votes  controlled  by  the 
government  of  Prussia  has  been  raised,  for  all  practical  purposes,  to 
twenty. 

It  may  be  observed  that  the  allocation  of  votes  for  which  provision 
was  made  in  the  constitution  of  1867-1871  was  largely  arbitrary. 
That  is  to  say,  except  for  the  quotas  of  Prussia  and  Bavaria,  it  was 
perpetuated  from  the  constitution  of  1815  with  no  attempt  to 
apportion  voting  power  among  the  several  states  in  exact  relation 
to  population,  wealth,  or  importance.  Upon  any  one  of  these  bases 
Prussia  must  have  been  accorded  an  absolute  majority  of  the  ag- 
gregate number,  rather  than  a  scant  third.  In  1867  the  population  of 
Prussia  comprised  four-fifths  of  that  of  the  North  German  Confedera- 
tion; in  1871,  two- thirds  of  that  of  the  Empire.  That  Prussia  should 
intrust  to  her  sister  states  a  total  of  forty-one  votes,  retaining  but 
seventeen  for  herself,  was  one  of  the  arrangements  by  which  Bis- 
marck sought  to  assure  the  lesser  members  of  the  federation  against 
too  complete  domination  on  the  part  of  the  Prussian  kingdom. 

229.  Status  of  Delegates  and  Method  of  Voting. — Each  state  is 
authorized,  though  not  required,  to  send  to  the  Bundesrath  a  number 
of  delegates  identical  with  the  number  of  votes  to  which  the  state  is 
entitled.  The  full  quota  of  members  is,  therefore  (since  the  Alsace- 
Lorraine  Constitution  Act  of  1911),  sixty-one.  Legally,  and  to  a  large 
extent  practically,  the  status  of  the  delegate  is  that,  not  of  a  senator, 

1  Under  the  Alsace-Lorraine  Constitution  Act  of  1911  (see  p.  285),  comprising 
for  all  practical  purposes  an  amendment  of  the  Imperial  constitution,  the  territory 
of  Alsace-Lorraine  has  become  nominally  a  state  of  the  Empire,  being  accorded 
three  votes  in  the  Bundesrath.  The  whole  number  of  votes  was  thus  raised  to 
sixty-one.  The  Alsatian  delegates  are  appointed  by  the  Statthalter,  who  is  the 
immediate  and  responsible  agent  of  the  Emperor.  Their  votes  are  cast,  how- 
ever, under  regulations  which  are  inconsistent  with  full-fledged  statehood. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  219 

but  of  a  diplomat;  and  the  Emperor  is  required  to  extend  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body  the  "customary  diplomatic  protection."  1  Delegates 
are  very  commonly  officials,  frequently  ministers,  of  the  states  which 
they  represent.  They  are  appointed  afresh  for  each  session,  and  they 
may  be  recalled  or  replaced  at  any  time.  The  purely  federal  character 
of  the  Bundesrath  is  further  emphasized  by  two  principal  facts.  The 
members  speak  and  act  and  vote  regularly,  not  at  their  own  discretion, 
but  under  the  specific  instructions  of  the  governing  authorities  by 
whom  they  are  accredited.  Only  rarely  do  their  instructions  allow  to 
them  any  considerable  measure  of  independence.  Strictly,  the  Bund- 
esrath is  not  a  deliberative  assembly  at  all;  though,  unlike  the  former 
Diet,  it  is  something  more  than  a  meeting  of  ambassadors  of  the  states. 
In  the  second  place,  the  votes  cast  are  the  votes,  not  of  the  individual 
members,  but  of  the  states,  and  they  are  cast  in  indivisible  blocks  by 
the  delegations  of  the  states,  regardless  of  the  number  of  members  in 
attendance.  Thus,  Bavaria  is  entitled  to  six  votes.  Whatever  the 
individual  opinions  of  the  six  Bavarian  delegates,  the  six  Bavarian 
votes  are  cast  solidly  upon  any  question  that  may  arise.  It  is  not 
even  necessary  that  six  delegates  actually  participate  in  the  decision. 
A  single  delegate  may  cast  the  entire  quota  of  votes  to  which  his  state 
is  entitled.  The  twenty  votes  controlled  by  Prussia  are  therefore  cast 
invariably  in  a  block,  from  which  it  follows  that  Prussia  usually  pre- 
ponderates in  the  chamber.  On  several  occasions  the  smaller  states 
have  been  able  to  combine  in  sufficient  numbers  to  defeat  a  project 
upon  which  Prussia  was  bent,  but  such  a  proceeding  is  distinctly 
exceptional. 

230.  Sessions  and  Procedure. — The  Bundesrath  may  be  convened 
by  the  Emperor,  which  in  effect  means  by  the  Chancellor,  at  any  time. 
The  constitution  stipulates  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one  session  a 
year,  and,  furthermore,  that  it  shall  be  obligatory  upon  the  Emperor 
to  convene  the  body  whenever  a  meeting  is  demanded  by  one-third 
of  the  total  number  of  votes.  The  Bundesrath  may  be  called  together 
"for  the  preparation  of  business"  without  the  Reichstag;  but  the 
Reichstag  may  not  be  convened  without  the  Bundesrath.2  The 
presiding  officer  at  all  sessions  is  the  Chancellor,  or  some  other  mem- 
ber of  the  body  by  him  designated  as  a  substitute.  It  is  within  the 
competence  of  each  member  of  the  confederation,  i.  e.,  each  state, 
to  propose  measures  and  to  introduce  motions.  The  phraseology  of 
the  constitution  debars  the  Emperor,  as  Emperor,  from  introducing 
proposals.  As  king  of  Prussia,  however,  he  may  bring  forward  any 

1  Art.  10.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  330. 

2  Arts.  13  and  14.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  331. 


220  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

project  through  the  medium  of  the  Prussian  delegation;  and  in  actual 
practice  it  has  not  always  been  deemed  necessary  to  resort  to  this 
subterfuge. 

From  all  sittings  of  the  Bundesrath  the  public  is  rigorously  ex- 
cluded; and  although  ordinarily  upon  the  conclusion  of  a  session  a 
statement  regarding  the  results  of  the  proceedings  is  given  to  the 
press,  the  chamber  may  vote  to  withhold  such  information  altogether. 
Business  left  unfinished  at  the  close  of  a  session  may  be  resumed  upon 
the  reassembling,  precisely  as  if  no  lapse  of  time  had  occurred.  With 
some  exceptions,  a  simple  majority  of  the  sixty-one  votes  is  adequate 
for  the  adoption  of  a  measure.  In  the  event  of  a  tie,  the  Prussian 
delegation  possesses  the  deciding  voice.  The  principal  limitations 
upon  decisions  by  simple  majority  are:  (i)  any  proposal  to  amend  the 
constitution  may  be  rejected  by  as  few  as  fourteen  votes,  whence  it 
arises  that  Prussia  has  an  absolute  veto  on  amendments;  and  (2)  when 
there  is  a  division  upon  proposed  legislation  relating  to  military  af- 
fairs, the  navy,  the  tariff,  and  various  consumption  taxes,  the  vote 
of  Prussia  prevails  if  it  is  cast  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  status 
quo.1 

231.  Committees. — The  work  of  the  Bundesrath  consists  largely 
in  the  preparation  of  measures  for  the  consideration  of  the  Reichstag, 
and  a  goodly  share  of  its  labor  is  performed  in  committees.  Of  per- 
manent committees  there  are  now  twelve — eight  provided  for  within 
the  constitution  itself  and  four  existing  by  virtue  of  standing  orders. 
The  committees  prescribed  by  the  constitution  are  those  on  the  army 
and  fortifications;  marine;  customs  and  taxes;  commerce;  railroads, 
posts  and  telegraphs;  judicial  affairs;  accounts;  and  foreign  relations. 
Under  certain  limitations,  each  of  these  committees,  constituted  for 
one  year,  is  chosen  by  the  Bundesrath  itself,  by  secret  ballot,  except 
that  the  Emperor  appoints  the  members  of  the  committee  on  the 
marine  and  all  but  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee  on  the  army 
and  fortifications.2  The  committees  existing  by  virtue  of  standing 
orders  are  those  on  Alsace-Lorraine,  railroad  freight  rates,  standing 
orders,  and  the  constitution.  All  committees  consist  of  seven  mem- 
bers, save  those  on  foreign  affairs  and  the  marine,  which  have  five; 
and  each  includes  representatives  of  at  least  four  states.  Prussia 
holds  all  chairmanships,  save  that  of  the  committee  on  foreign  af- 
fairs, which  belongs  to  Bavaria. 

1  Art.  5.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  328. 

2  Art.  8.    Ibid.,  I.,  330.    Strictly,  the  Bundesrath  but  indicates  by  ballot  the 
states  which  shall  be  represented  on  each  committee,  leaving  to  the  states  them- 
selves the  right  to  name  their  representatives. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  221 

232.  Powers  of  Legislation. — By  reason  of  the  pivotal  position 
which  the  Bundesrath  occupies  in  the  German  constitutional  system 
the  functions  of  the  body  are  fundamental  and  its  powers  compre- 
hensive.   Its  competence  is  in  the  main  legislative  and  fiscal,  but  also 
in  part  executive  and  judicial.    By  the  constitution  it  is  stipulated 
that  the  legislative  power  of  the  Empire  shall  be  exercised  by  the 
Bundesrath  and  the  Reichstag,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  votes  of 
both  bodies  shall  be  necessary  and  sufficient  for  the  enactment 
of  a  law.1    The  right  of  initiating  legislation  is  expressly  conferred 
upon  the  Reichstag,  but  in  practice  it  is  exercised  almost  exclusively 
by  the  Bundesrath.    Even  finance  bills  all  but  invariably  originate 
in  the  superior  chamber.    Under  the  normal  procedure  bills  are  pre- 
pared, discussed,  and  voted  in  the  Bundesrath,  submitted  to  the 
Reichstag  for  consideration  and  acceptance,  and  returned  for  further 
scrutiny  by  the  Bundesrath  before  their  promulgation  by  the  Emperor. 
In  any  case,  the  final  approval  of  a  measure  must  take  place  in  the 
Bundesrath,  by  whose  authority  alone  the  character  of  law  can  be 
imparted.    Speaking  strictly,  it  is  the  Bundesrath  that  makes  law, 
with  merely  the  assent  of  the  Reichstag. 

233.  Executive  Authority. — The  Bundesrath's  executive  functions 
represent  a  curious  admixture,  but  the  sum  total  is  very  considerable. 
In  the  first  place,  the  body  possesses  supplementary  administrative 
powers.    By  the  constitution  it  is  required  to  take  action  upon  "  the. 
general  administrative  provisions  and  arrangements  necessary  for 
the  execution  of  the  Imperial  laws,  so  far  as  no  other  provision  is  made 
by  law,"  as  well  as  upon  "the  defects  which  may  be  discovered  in 
the  execution  of  the  Imperial  laws. "  2    This  function  is  performed 
through  the  issuing  of  ordinances  so  devised  as  not  to  contravene 
the  constitution,  existing  law,  or  the  proper  prerogatives  of  any 
constituted  authority,  Imperial  or  state.    In  the  second  place,  certain 
powers  vested  in  the  Emperor  may  be  exercised  only  with  the  Bundes- 
rath's  consent.    Most  important  of  these  are:  (i)  the  declaration  of 
war,  save  in  the  event  of  an  attack  upon  the  territory  or  coasts  of 
the  Empire;  (2)  the  concluding  of  treaties,  in  so  far  as  they  relate  to 
matters  falling  within  the  range  of  Imperial  legislation;  and  (3)  the 
carrying  out  of  an  "execution"  against  a  delinquent  state.    Finally 
certain  relations  are  maintained  with  the  Reichstag  which  involve 
the  exercise  of  authority  that  is  essentially  executive.     With  the 
assent  of  the  Emperor,  the  Bundesrath  may  dissolve  the  popular 
chamber;  and  every  member  of  the  Bundesrath  has  the  right  to  ap- 

1  Art.  5.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  328. 
8A#.  7.    Dodd,  I.,  329. 


222  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

pear  in  the  Reichstag  and  to  be  heard  there  at  any  time  upon  his  own 
request,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  a  minister  in  a  parliamentary 
government.1  Large  functions  in  connection  with  public  finance, 
likewise,  are  vested  in  the  body.  By  it  the  annual  budget  is  prepared, 
the  accounts  which  the  Empire  carries  with  the  states  are  audited, 
and  important  supervisory  relations  with  the  Imperial  Bank,  the 
Imperial  Debt  Commission,  and  other  fiscal  agencies,  are  maintained. 
Lastly,  there  is  some  participation  in  the  power  of  appointment; 
for  although  that  power,  as  such,  is  vested  in  the  Emperor,  officials 
of  some  kinds  (e.  g.,  judges  of  the  Imperial  Court)  are  actually 
chosen  by  the  Bundesrath,  and  in  many  other  instances  the  body 
preserves  an  acknowledged  right  to  approve  appointments  which 
are  made. 

234.  Judicial  Powers. — In  its  judicial  capacity  the  Bundesrath 
sits  as  a  supreme  court  of  appeal,  to  which  cases  may  be  carried  from 
the  tribunals  of  a  state,  when  it  can  be  shown  that  justice  is  not 
to  be  had  in  those  tribunals.2  It  serves  also  as  a  court  of  last  resort 
for  the  settlement  of  disputes  between  the  Imperial  Government 
and  a  state;  or  between  two  states,  when  the  point  at  issue  is  not  a 
matter  of  private  law  and  when  a  definite  request  for  action  is  made 
by  one  of  the  parties.  Finally,  in  disputes  relating  to  constitutional 
questions  in  states  whose  constitution  does  not  designate  an  authority 
for  the  settlement  of  such  differences,  the  Bundesrath  is  required, 
at  the  request  of  one  of  the  parties,  to  effect  an  amicable  adjustment; 
or,  if  this  shall  prove  impossible,  to  see  to  it  that  the  issue  is  settled 
by  Imperial  law.3 

1  Arts.  9  and  24.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  330-333.    It  should  be  ob- 
served, however,  that  the  members  of  the  Bundesrath  are  authorized  to  appear  in 
the  Reichstag,  not  for  the  purpose  of  advocating  a  measure  which  the  Bundesrath 
has  enacted,  or  would  be  willing  to  enact,  but  simply  to  voice  the  interests  or  de- 
mands of  their  own  states. 

2  Art.  77.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  350. 

3  Art.  76.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  350.    On  the  Bundesrath  see  How- 
ard, The  German  Empire,  Chap.  4;  J.  H.  Robinson,  The  German  Bundesrath,  in 
Publications  of  University  of  Pennsylvania,  III.  (Philadelphia,  1891);  P.  Laband, 
Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  27-31;  A.  Lebon,  fitudes  sur  PAlle- 
magne  politique,  137-151;  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  I.,  505-523;  Zorn,  Das  Staats- 
recht des  deutschen  Reiches,  I.,  136-160;  E.  Kliemke,  Die  Staatsrechtliche  Natur 
und  Stellung  des  Bundesrathes  (Berlin,  1894);  A.  Herwegen,  Reichsverfassung  und 
Bundesrat  (Cologne,  1902). 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT:  REICHSTAG,  PARTIES,  JUDICIARY 

I.  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  REICHSTAG — ELECTORAL  SYSTEM 

In  complete  contrast  with  the  Bundesrath,  which  is  a  purely  federal 
institution,  the  Reichstag  is  broadly  national.  It  represents,  not  the 
states,  nor  yet  the  people  of  the  states,  but  the  people  of  the  Empire 
as  a  whole.  From  what  has  been  said  regarding  the  preponderance 
of  the  autocratic  principle  in  the  German  system  it  follows  that  there 
is  no  room  in  that  system  for  a  parliamentary  chamber  of  the  nature 
of  the  British  House  of  Commons  or  of  the  French  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties. None  the  less,  restricted  as  are  its  functions,  the  Reichstag  is 
one  of  the  world's  most  vigorous  and  interesting  legislative  bodies. 

235.  Allotment  of  Seats. — Members  of  the  Reichstag  are  chosen 
for  a  term  of  five  years,1  by  direct  and  secret  ballot,  at  an  election 
which  takes  place  on  a  given  day  throughout  the  entire  Empire.  The 
number  of  seats,  fixed  tentatively  by  the  constitution  of  1871  at  382, 
was,  by  law  of  June  25,  1873,  providing  for  the  election  of  fifteen 
members  from  Alsace-Lorraine,  increased  to  397;  and  it  thereafter 
remained  unchanged.  The  electoral  "circles,"  or  districts,  each 
of  which  returns  one  member,  were  laid  out  originally  in  such  a  way 
as  to  comprise  100,000  inhabitants  each,  and  also  hi  such  a  manner  that 
no  district  would  embrace  portions  of  two  or  more  states.  Since  1871 
there  has  been  no  redistricting  of  the  Empire,  and  the  populations 
comprising  the  various  constituencies  have  become  grossly  unequal. 
Berlin,  with  more  than  two  million  people,  is  still  entitled  to  but  six 
seats;  and  the  disproportion  in  other  great  cities  and  densely  inhabited 
regions  is  almost  as  flagrant.2  There  has  long  been  demand  for  a 
redistribution  of  seats;  but,  by  reason  of  the  proneness  of  urban  con- 
stituencies to  return  to  the  Reichstag  socialists  or  other  radicals, 

1  The  term,  originally  three  years,  was  made  five  by  a  law  of  1888.    The  modi- 
fication went  into  effect  with  the  Reichstag  elected  in  February,  1890. 

2  In  Conservative  East  Prussia  the  average  number  of  voters  in  a  district  is 
121,000;  in  Socialist  Berlin  it  is  345,000.    Twelve  of  the  most  populous  districts 
represented  in  the  Reichstag  contain  1,950,000  voters;  twelve  of  the  least  populous, 
170,000.   The  district  of  Schaumburg-Lippe  has  but  9,891. 

»i 


224  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  Government  has  never  been  willing  to  meet  the  demand.  By 
states,  the  397  seats  are  distributed  as  follows:  Prussia,  236;  Bavaria, 
48;  Saxony,  23;  Wiirttemberg,  17;  Alsace-Lorraine  (Imperial  territory), 
15;  Baden,  14;  Hesse,  9;  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  6;  Saxe- Weimar,  3; 
Oldenburg,  3;  Brunswick,  3,  Hamburg,  3;  Saxe-Meiningen,  2;  Saxe- 
Coburg-Gotha,  2;  Anhalt,  2;  and  all  others,  one  each.  As  in  the 
American  House  of  Representatives,  a  state  is  entitled  to  one  member 
regardless  of  its  population. 

236.  Time  and  Method  of  Elections. — Electoral  procedure  is  regu- 
lated by  the  Election  Law  of  May  31, 1869,  amended  in  minor  particu- 
lars at  subsequent  dates,  and  extended  in  1871  and  in  1873  to  the 
southern  states  and  to  Alsace-Lorraine  respectively.  Elections  are 
held  uniformly  throughout  the  Empire  on  a  day  fixed  by  the  Emperor. 
In  the  event  of  a  dissolution  prior  to  the  end  of  the  five-year  term 
an  election  is  required  to  take  place  within  a  period  of  sixty  days, 
and  the  new  Reichstag  must  be  convened  not  later  than  ninety  days 
after  the  dissolution.1  For  election  on  the  first  ballot  an  absolute 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  within  the  circle,  or  district,  is  required. 
If  no  candidate  obtains  such  a  majority,  there  follows  a  second  bal- 
loting (Stichwahl)  a  fortnight  later,  when  choice  is  made  between 
the  two  candidates  who  upon  the  first  occasion  polled  the  largest 
number  of  votes.  In  the  event  of  a  tie,  decision  is  by  lot.2  Secrecy 
of  the  ballot  is  specially  safeguarded  by  regulations  enacted  April  28, 
1903.  Each  voter,  upon  appearing  at  the  polls,  is  furnished  with 
an  envelope  and  a  white  voting-paper  bearing  an  official  stamp.  In 
a  compartment  arranged  for  the  purpose  in  the  polling  room  he  marks 
his  ballot  and  incloses  it  in  the  envelope.  As  he  leaves  the  room  he 
hands  the  envelope  to  the  presiding  officer  or  deposits  it  in  a  voting 
urn.  Once  elected,  a  member,  according  to  constitutional  stipula- 
tion, is  a  representative,  not  of  the  constituency  that  chose  him,  but 
of  the  people  of  the  Empire  as  a  whole,  and  he  may  not  be  bound  by 
any  order  or  instruction.3 

1  Art.  25.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  333. 

2  By  reason  of  the  multiplicity  of  parties  the  number  of  second  ballotings  required 
is  invariably  large.    In  1890  it  was  138;  in  1893,  181;  in  1898,  185;  in  1903,  180;  in 
1907,  158;  and  in  1912,  191.    It  is  calculated  that  the  effect  of  forty  per  cent  of  the 
second  ballotings  is  to  prevent  the  election  of  the  candidate  obtaining  originally 
the  largest  number  of  votes.    The  arrangement  operates  to  the  advantage  princi- 
pally of  the  National  Liberals,  the  Radicals,  and  other  essentially  moderate  parties, 
and  to  the  disadvantage  especially  of  the  Social  Democrats.    On  this  subject  see 
A.  N.  Holcombe,  Direct  Primaries  and  the  Second  Ballot,  in  American  Political 
Science  Review,  Nov.,  1911. 

5  Art.  29.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  333. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  225 

237.  The  Franchise.— The  franchise  is  broadly  democratic.    Every 
male  who,  possessing  citizenship  in  the  Empire,  has  completed  his 
twenty-fifth  year  is  entitled  to  vote  in  the  clistrict  in  which  he  has 
his  domicile,  provided  his  name  appears  on  the  registration  lists. 
He  is  not  required  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  state  in  which  he  votes.    The 
only  exceptions  to  the  general  rule  of  universal  manhood  suffrage 
arise  from  the  disfranchisement  of  persons  under  guardianship,  bank- 
rupts, beneficiaries  of  public  charity,  persons  suffering  judicial  dep- 
rivation in  respect  to  certain  of  their  rights  as  citizens,  and  persons 
in  active  service  in  the  army  and  navy.    Any  male  citizen,  possessed 
of  the  right  to  vote,  twenty-five  years  of  age  or  over,  and  a  resident 
of  a  state  of  the  Empire  during  at  least  one  year,  is  eligible  as  a  can- 
didate.   He  is  not  required  to  be  a  citizen  of  the  state  from  which 
he  aspires  to  be  elected.1 

238.  Privileges  of  Members. — Solicitous  lest  if  members  of  the 
Reichstag  should  be  entitled  to  remuneration  for  their  services  the 
poorer  classes  would  arrive  at  a  preponderance  in  the  chamber,  Bis- 
marck insisted  in  season  and  out  upon  the  non-payment  of  representa- 
tives, and  by  the  constitution  of  1871  salaries  were  specifically  forbid- 
den.2   During  the  eighties  the  Imperial  Court  of  Appeal  ruled  that 
the  payment  of  socialist  members  by  then*  supporters  was  illegal,3 
though  such  payment  has  been  in  recent  times  not  unknown.    Again 
and  again  measures  providing  for  the  payment  of  all  members  from  the 
Imperial  treasury  were  passed  in  the  Reichstag,  only  to  be  thrown  out 
by  the  Bundesrath.    May  21,  1906,  such  a  measure  was  at  last  enacted 
by  both  chambers,  providing  for  a  payment  of  3,000  marks  a  session 
(with  a  deduction  of  twenty-five  marks  for  each  day's  absence),  and  in 
addition  free  passes  over  German  railways  during,  and  for  eight  days 
before  and  after,  sessions.    Upon  the  taking  effect  of  this  measure, 
Germany  became  one  of  the  several  European  countries  in  which, 
within  years  comparatively  recent,  the  members  of  the  popular  legisla- 
tive chamber  have  been  given  a  right  to  public  compensation.    Special 
privileges  enjoyed  by  members  are  of  the  customary  sort.    No  member 
may  at  any  time  be  held  legally  to  account  outside  the  chamber  by 

1  On  the  German  Imperial  electoral  system  see  Howard,  The  German  Empire, 
Chap.  5;  Lebon,  Etudes  sur  TAllemagne  politique,  70-83;  ibid.,  fitude  sur  la 
16gislation  electorate  de  1'empire  d'Allemagne,  in  Bulletin  de  Legislation  Comparee, 
1879;  G.  Below,  Das  parlamentarische  Wahlrecht  in  Deutschland  (Berlin,  1909); 
and  M.  H.  Ne"zard,  L'Evolution  du  suffrage  universel  en  Prusse  et  dans  1'Empire 
allemand,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  Oct.-Dec.,  1904. 

a  "The  members  of  the  Reichstag,  as  such,  shall  draw  no  salary  or  compensation." 
Art.  32.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  334. 

1  Cf.  the  Osborae  Judgment  of  1909  in  England  (see  p.  127). 


226  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

reason  of  his  utterances  or  his  votes  within  it*  Unless  taken  in  the 
commission  of  a  misdemeanor,  or  during  the  ensuing  day,  a  member 
may  not  be  arrested  for  any  penal  offense,  or  for  debt,  without  the 
consent  of  the  chamber;  and  at  the  request  of  the  chamber  all  criminal 
proceedings  instituted  against  a  member,  and  any  detention  for  judicial 
investigation  or  in  civil  cases,  must  be  suspended  during  a  session.1 

II.  ORGANIZATION  AND  POWERS  OF  THE  REICHSTAG 

239.  Sessions  and  Officers. — The  constitution  stipulates  that  the 
Reichstag  and  the  Bundesrath  shall  meet  annually.    Beyond  this,  and 
the  further  requirement  that  the  Reichstag  shall  never  be  hi  session 
when  the  Bundesrath  is  not,  the  Imperial  Government  is  left  entirely 
free  in  respect  to  the  convening  of  the  representative  body.2    The 
summons  is  issued  by  the  Emperor  and  the  sessions  are  opened  by 
him,  in  person  or  by  proxy.    By  him  the  assembly  may  be  prorogued 
(though  not  more  than  once  during  a  session,  and  never  for  a  longer 
period  than  thirty  days  without  its  own  consent);  by  him  also,  with 
the  assent  of  the  Bundesrath,  it  may  be  dissolved.3    The  chamber 
validates  the  election  of  its  members,  regulates  its  own  procedure  and 
discipline,  and  elects  its  president,  vice-presidents,  and  secretaries.4 
Under  standing  orders  adopted  February  10,  1876,  the  president  and 
vice-president  are  chosen  at  the  opening  of  the  first  session  following 
a  general  election  for  a  temporary  term  of  four  weeks,  and  upon  the 
expiration  of  this  period  an  election  takes  place  for  the  remainder  of 
the  session.    At  the  opening  of  each  succeeding  session  an  election 
of  these  officials  for  the  session  takes  place  at  once.    The  secretary  is 
chosen  at  the  beginning  of  each  session  for  the  entire  session. 

240.  Abtheilungen  and  Committees. — At  the  opening  of  a  session 
the  entire  membership  of  the  Reichstag  is  divided  by  lot  into  seven 
Abtheilungen,  or  bureaus,  as  nearly  equal  as  it  is  possible  to  make 
them.    The  bureaus  of  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies  are  recon- 
stituted once  a  month,  and  those  of  the  Italian  once  in  two  months, 
but  those  of  the  Reichstag  are  maintained  unchanged  throughout  a 
session,  unless  upon  motion  of  as  many  as  thirty  members  the  body 
decides  upon  a  fresh  distribution.    The  functions  of  the  bureaus  com- 

1  Arts.  30  and  31.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  334. 

2  Mention  has  been  made  of  the  regulation  that,  following  a  dissolution  prior  to 
the  end  of  the  five-year  term,  the  chamber  shall  be  convoked  within  ninety  days. 
It  will  be  recalled,  also,  that  the  Bundesrath  may  be  convoked  without  the  Reich- 
stag. 

'Nominally  by  a  resolution  of  the  Bundesrath,  with  the  consent  of  the. Em- 
peror.   Art.  24.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  333. 
4  Art.  27.    Ibid. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  227 

prise,  in  the  main,  the  passing  upon  the  credentials  of  members  of 
the  chamber  and  the  designating  of  members  of  committees.  There 
is  in  the  Reichstag  but  one  standing  committee — that  on  elections. 
It  is  perpetuated  throughout  a  session.  All  other  committees  are 
made  up,  as  occasion  requires,  by  the  appointment  by  ballot  of  an 
equal  number  of  members  by  each  of  the  seven  bureaus;  although,  in 
point  of  fact,  the  preparation  of  committee  lists  falls  largely  to  the 
party  leaders  of  the  chamber.  The  function  of  committees  is  the 
preliminary  consideration  of  measures  and  the  reporting  of  them  and 
of  evidence  relating  to  them,  to  the  chamber.  Bills  are  not,  however, 
in  all  cases  referred  to  committees. 

241.  Methods  of  Business. — Measures  proposed  for  enactment  pass 
through  the  three  readings  which  have  come  to  be  customary  among 
modern  legislative  assemblies.    Debate  is  carried  on  under  regulations 
closely  resembling  those  which  prevail  in  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons and  distinctly  less  restrictive  than  those  in  vogue  in  the  French 
Chamber  of  Deputies.    Members  of  the  Bundesrath,  to  whom  is  as- 
signed a  special  bench,  possess  the  right  to  appear  and  to  speak  at 
pleasure.     Debaters  address  the  chamber  from  the  tribune  or  from 
their  seats  as  they  choose,  and  they  speak  whenever  they  can  secure 
the  recognition  of  the  presiding  official,  not,  as  in  France,  in  the  hard 
and  fast  order  indicated  by  a  previously  prepared  written  list.    Like 
the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  the  president  of  the  Reichstag 
is  a  strictly  non-partisan  moderator.    A  fixed  tradition  of  the  office  is 
that  during  debate  the  chair  shall  recognize  alternately  the  supporters 
and  the  opponents  of  the  measure  under  consideration.    As  a  general 
rule,  closure  of  debate  may  be  ordered  upon  the  initiative  of  thirty 
members. 

Unlike  the  sittings  of  the  Bundesrath,  which  take  place  invariably 
behind  closed  doors,  those  of  the  Reichstag  are,  by  constitutional 
provision,  public.  Under  the  standing  orders,  however,  the  body  may 
go  into  secret  session,  on  motion  of  the  president,  or  of  ten  members. 
Publicity  is  further  assured  by  the  constitutional  stipulation  that 
"no  one  shall  be  held  responsible  for  truthful  reports  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  public  sessions  of  the  Reichstag."  l  Measures  are  carried  by 
absolute  majority;  and,  while  discussion  may  proceed  in  the  absence 
of  a  quorum,  no  vote  or  other  action  is  valid  unless  there  is  present  a 
majority  of  the  full  membership  of  the  body,  that  is,  since  1873,  I99- 

242.  Powers. — The  legislative  power  of  the  Empire  is  vested  in  the 
Reichstag  and  the  Bundesrath  conjointly,  and  a  majority  of  the  votes 
of  both  bodies  is  necessary  for  the  enactment  of  a  law.    So  declares 

1  Art.  22.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  333. 


228  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  constitution.  The  legislative  functions  of  the  popular  chamber 
are,  however,  in  practice  distinctly  subordinate  to  those  of  the  Bun- 
desrath.  The  Reichstag  possesses  no  such  power  of  legislative  initia- 
tive and  discretion  as  is  possessed  by  the  popular  chambers  of  Great 
Britain,  France,  Italy,  and  the  United  States.  Its  consent  is  necessary 
for  the  enactment  of  every  law,  for  the  adoption  of  every  constitu- 
tional amendment,  and  for  the  ratification  of  every  treaty  affecting 
matters  within  the  domain  of  Imperial  legislation.  But  bills,  including 
those  relating  to  finance,  originate  ordinarily  with  the  Chancellor  and 
the  Bundesrath;  the  procedure  followed  in  the  shaping  of  revenue  and 
military  measures  puts  the  Reichstag  distinctly  at  a  disadvantage; 
and,  at  the  best,  the  part  which  the  chamber  can  play  in  the  public 
policy  of  the  Empire  is  negative  and  subsidiary.  It  can  block  legisla- 
tion and  discuss  at  length  the  policy  of  the  Government,  but  it  is  not 
vested  by  the  constitution  with  power  sufficient  to  make  it  an  effective 
instrument  of  control.  It  is  within  the  competence  of  the  Bundesrath, 
with  the  assent  of  the  Emperor,  to  dissolve  the  popular  chamber  at 
any  time,  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  such  action  is  taken  without 
an  iota  of  the  ministerial  responsibility  which  in  other  nations  ordi- 
narily accompanies  the  right  of  dissolution.  On  several  occasions  since 
1871  the  Reichstag  has  been  dissolved  with  the  sheer  intent  of  putting 
an  end  to  its  obstructionism.1 

The  standing  orders  of  the  chamber  make  mention  of  the  right  of 
interpellation,  and  resort  is  occasionally  had  to  this  characteristic 
continental  legislative  practice.  There  are  no  ministers,  however,  to 
whom  an  interpellation  may  be  addressed  except  the  Chancellor,  and 
even  he  has  no  right  to  appear  in  the  Reichstag  save  as  a  member  of 
the  Bundesrath.  The  consequence  is  that  interpellations  are  ad- 
dressed, in  practice,  to  the  Bundesrath.  It  is  only  where  the  parlia- 
mentary system  prevails,  as  in  France  and  Italy,  that  the  device  of 
interpellation  can  be  made  to  assume  much  importance.  The  possi- 
bility of  a  larger  opportunity  for  interpellation,  which  should  involve 
the  right  of  the  chamber  to  adopt  resolutions  declaring  satisfaction  or 
dissatisfaction  with  the  answer  made,  was  warmly,  but  on  the  whole 
inconclusively,  discussed  in  the  Reichstag  in  191 2.2 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  257. 

2  On  the  Reichstag  see  Howard,  The  German  Empire,  Chap.  5;  A.  Lebon,  Le 
Reichstag  allemand,  in  Annales  de  V&cole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  April, 
1889;   ibid.,   fitudes   sur   PAllemagne  politique,  Chap.  2;  Laband,  Das   Staats- 
recht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§32-38;  H.  Robalsky,  Der  deutsche    Reichstag 
(Berlin,  1897);  G.  Leser,  Untersuchungen  tiber  das  Wahlpriifungsrecht  des  deut- 
schen Reichstags  (Leipzig,  1908).    There  is  a  full  discussion  of  German  methods 
of  legislation  in  Laband,  op.  cit.,  §§  54-59. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  229 


III.  THE  RISE  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

In  Germany,  as  in  continental  countries  generally,  the  number  of 
political  groups  is  legion.  Many  are  too  small  and  unstable  to  be 
entitled  properly  to  the  designation  of  parties;  and,  in  truth,  of  even 
the  larger  ones  none  has  ever  become  so  formidable  numerically  as  to 
acquire  a  majority  in  the  popular  chamber.  For  the  enactment  of 
measures  the  Government  is  obliged  to  rely  always  upon  some  sort  of 
coalition,  or,  at  best,  upon  the  members  of  a  group  which  for  the  time 
being  holds  the  balance  between  two  opposing  alignments. 

243.  Conservatives  and  Progressives. — The  party  situation  of  the 
present  day  has  been  reached  in  consequence  of  the  gradual  disintegra- 
tion of  the  two  great  political  groups  with  which  Prussia  entered  upon 
the  period  of  Bismarck's  ministry;  and  to  this  day  the  parties  of  the 
German  Empire  and  those  of  the  Prussian  kingdom  are  largely  iden- 
tical.1 The  two  original  Prussian  groups  were  the  Conservatives  and 
the  Fortschritt,  or  Progressives,  of  which  the  one  comprised,  through- 
out the  middle  portion  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  supporters  of  the 
Government  and  the  other  its  opponents.  The  Conservatives  were 
pre-eminently  the  party  of  the  landed  aristocracy  of  northern  and 
eastern  Germany.  During  twenty  years  prior  to  1867  they  dominated 
completely  the  Prussian  court  and  army.  Following  the  Austrian 
war  of  1866,  however,  the  Conservative  ascendancy  was  broken  and 
there  set  in  that  long  process  of  party  dissolution  by  which  German 
political  life  has  been  brought  to  its  present  confused  condition.  To 
begin  with,  each  of  the  two  original  parties  broke  into  two  distinct 
groups.  From  the  Conservatives  sprang  the  Frei  Conservative^  or 
Free  Conservatives;  from  the  Fortschritt,  the  National-Liberal- 
Partei,  or  National  Liberals.  In  the  one  case  the  new  group  comprised 
the  more  advanced  element  of  the  old  one;  in  the  other,  the  more 
moderate;  so  that,  in  the  order  of  radicalism,  the  parties  of  the  dec- 
ade following  1866  were  the  Conservatives,  the  Free  Conservatives, 
the  National  Liberals,  and  the  Fortschrittspartei,  or  Radicals.  Among 
these  four  groups  Bismarck  was  able  to  win  for  his  policy  of  German 
unification  the  support  of  the  more  moderate,  that  is  to  say,  the  second 
and  third.  The  ultra-Conservatives  clung  to  the  particularistic  regime 
of  earlier  days,  and  with  them  the  genius  of  "blood  and  iron"  broke 
definitely  in  1866.  The  Free  Conservatives  comprised  at  the  outset 

1  To  so  great  an  extent  is  this  true  that,  having  described  in  this  place  the  parties 
of  the  Empire,  it  will  not  be  necessary  subsequently  to  allude  at  length  to  those  of 
Prussia. 


230  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

simply  those  elements  of  the  original  Conservative  party  who  were 
willing  to  follow  Bismarck. 

244.  Rise  and  Preponderance  of  the  National  Liberals. — Similarly 
among  the  Progressives  there  was  division  upon  the  attitude  to  be 
assumed  toward  the  Bismarckian  programme.    The  more  radical  wing 
of  the  party,  i.  e.,  that  which  maintained  the  name  and  the  policies  of  the 
original  Fortschritt,  refused  to  abandon  its  opposition  to  militarism  and 
monarchism,  opposed  the  constitution  of  1867  for  its  illiberality,  and 
witheld  from  Bismarck's  government  all  substantial  support.     The 
larger  portion  of  the  party  members,  however  were  willing  to  subordi- 
nate for  a  time  to  Bismarck's  nationalizing  projects  the  contest  which 
the  united  Fortschritt  had  long  been  waging  in  behalf  of  constitutional- 
ism.   The  party  of  no  compromise  was  strongest  in  Berlin  and  the  towns 
of  east  Prussia.     It  was  almost  exclusively  Prussian.     The  National 
Liberals,  on  the  contrary,  became  early  an  essentially  German,  rather 
than    simply  a  Prussian,  party.     Even  before  1871  they  comprised, 
in  point  both  of  numbers  and  of  power,  the  preponderating  party  in  both 
Prussia  and  the  Confederation  as  a  whole;  and  after  1871,  when  the 
Nationalists  of  the  southern  states  cast  in  their  lot  with  the  National 
Liberals,   the  predominance  of  that  party  was  effectually  assured. 
Upon  the  National  Liberals  as  the  party  of  unity  and  uniformity  Bis- 
marck relied  absolutely  for  support  in  the  upbuilding  of  the  Empire. 
It  was  only  in  1878,  after  the  party  had  lost  control  of  the  Reichstag, 
in  consequence  of  the  reaction  against  Liberalism  attending  the  great 
religious  contest  known  as  the  Kulturkampf,  that  the  Chancellor  was 
in  a  position  to  throw  off  the  not  infrequently  galling  bonds  of  the 
Liberal  alliance. 

245.  The  Newer  Groups:  the  Centre. — Meanwhile  the  field  occupied 
by  the  various  parties  that  have  been  named  was,  from  an  early  date, 
cut  into  by  an  increasing  number  of  newly  organized  parties  and  groups. 
Most  important  among  these  were  the  Clericals,  or  Centre,  and  the 
Social  Democrats.    The  origins  of  the  Centre  may  be  traced  to  the 
project  which  was  formulated  in  December,  1870,  to  found  a  new  party, 
a  party  which  should  be  essentially  Catholic,  and  which  should  have 
for  its  purpose  the  defense  of  society  against  radicalism,  of  the  states 
against  the  central  government,  and  of  the  schools  against  seculariza- 
tion. A  favorite  saying  of  the  founders  was  that "  at  the  birth  of  the  Em- 
pire Justice  was  not  present."     The  party,  gaining  strength  first  in  the 
Rhenish  and  Polish  provinces  of  Prussia  and  in  Bavaria,  was  able  in 
the  elections  of  1871  to  win  a  total  of  sixty  seats.     Employed  by  the 
Catholic  clergy  during  the  decade  that  followed  to  maintain  the  cause 
of  the  papacy  against  the  machinations  of  Bismarck,  the  party  early 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  231 

struck  root  deeply;  and  by  reason  of  the  absolute  identification  in  the 
public  mind  of  its  interests  with  the  interests  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
ensuring  its  preponderance  in  the  states  of  the  south,  and  also  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  it  has  always  been  more  successful  than  any  of  its  rivals 
in  maintaining  compactness  of  organization,  it  became,  and  has  con- 
tinued almost  uninterruptedly  to  the  present  time,  the  strongest  numer- 
ically of  all  political  groups  within  the  Reichstag. 

246.  The  Newer  Groups:  the  Social  Democrats. — The  Social  Demo- 
cratic party  was  founded  in  1869  under  the  leadership  of  Wilhelm  Lieb- 
knecht  and  August  Bebel.  In  1863  there  had  been  organized  at  Leipzig, 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  eloquent  Marxist  Ferdinand  Lassalle,  a 
Universal  German  Workingman's  Association.  Between  the  two 
bodies  there  was  for  a  time  keen  rivalry,  but  at  a  congress  held  at 
Gotha,  in  May,  1875,  they  (together  with  a  number  of  other  socialistic 
societies)  were  merged  in  one  organization,  which  has  continued  to 
this  day  to  be  known  as  the  Social  Democratic  party.  The  develop- 
ment of  socialism  in  the  Empire  between  1870  and  1880,  in  respect  to 
both  numbers  and  efficiency  of  organization,  was  phenomenal.  At 
the  parliamentary  elections  of  1871  the  Social  Democratic  vote  was 
124,655  (three  per  cent  of  the  total)  and  two  Social  Democrats  were 
chosen  to  the  Reichstag.  In  1874  the  popular  vote  was  351,952,  and 
nine  members  were  elected;  in  1877  it  was  493,288,  and  the  number  of 
successful  candidates  was  twelve.  By  the  Emperor  William  I.  and  by 
his  chancellor,  Bismarck,  as  indeed  by  the  governing  and  well-to-do 
classes  generally,  the  progress  of  the  movement  was  viewed  with  frankly 
avowed  apprehension.  Most  of  the  great  projects  of  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment were  opposed  by  the  Social  Democrats,  and  the  members  of  the 
party  were  understood  to  be  enemies  of  the  entire  existing  order,  and 
even  of  civilization  itself.  Two  attempts  in  1878  upon  the  life  of  the 
Emperor,  made  by  men  who  were  socialists,  but  disavowed  by  the 
socialists  as  a  body,  afforded  the  authorities  an  opportunity  to  enter 
upon  a  campaign  of  socialist  repression,  and  from  1878  to  1890  anti- 
socialist  legislation  of  the  most  thoroughgoing  character  was  regularly 
on  the  statute  books  and  was  in  no  slight  measure  enforced.  At  the 
same  time  that  effort  was  being  made  to  stamp  out  socialist  propaganda 
a  remarkable  series  of  social  reforms  was  undertaken  with  the  deliberate 
purpose  not  only  of  promoting  the  public  well-being,  but  of  cutting  the 
ground  from  under  the  socialists'  feet,  or,  as  some  one  has  observed,  of 
"  curing  the  Empire  of  socialism  by  inoculation."  The  most  important 
steps  taken  in  this  direction  comprised  the  inauguration  of  sickness 
insurance  in  1883,  of  accident  insurance  in  1884,  and  of  old-age  and 
invalidity  insurance  in  1889. 


232  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

For  a  time  the  measures  of  the  government  seemed  to  accomplish  their 
purpose,  and  the  official  press  loudly  proclaimed  that  socialism  in 
Germany  was  extinct.  In  reality,  however,  socialism  thrived  on  persecu- 
tion. In  the  hour  of  Bismarck's  apparent  triumph  the  socialist  propa- 
ganda was  being  pushed  covertly  in  every  corner  of  the  Empire.  A 
party  organ  known  as  the  Social  Democrat  was  published  in  Switzerland, 
and  every  week  thousands  of  copies  found  their  way  across  the  border 
and  were  passed  from  hand  to  hand  among  determined  readers  and 
converts.  A  compact  organization  was  maintained,  a  treasury  was  es- 
tablished and  kept  well  filled,  and  with  truth  the  Social  Democrats  aver 
to-day  that  in  no  small  measure  they  owe  their  superb  organization 
to  the  Bismarckian  era  of  repression.  At  the  elections  of  1878  the  party 
cast  but  437,158  votes,  but  in  1884  its  vote  was  549,990  (9.7  per  cent 
of  the  whole)  and  the  contingent  of  representatives  returned  to  the 
Reichstag  numbered  twenty-four.  In  1890  the  socialist  vote  attained 
the  enormous  total  of  1,427,298  (19.7  per  cent  of  the  whole),  and  the 
number  of  representatives  was  increased  to  thirty-five.  Repression  was 
manifestly  a  failure,  and  in  1890  the  Reichstag,  with  the  sanction  of  the 
new  emperor,  William  II.,  wisely  declined  to  renew  the  statute  under 
which  proscription  had  been  employed. 

247.  Minor  Parties. — Aside  from  the  Centre  and  the  Social  Demo- 
crats, the  newer  party  groups  in  Germany — the  Guelfs,  the  Poles,  the 
Danes,  the  Alsatians,  the  Antisemites,  etc. — are  small  and  relatively  un- 
important. All  are  particularistic  and  irreconcilable;  all  are  organized 
on  the  basis  of  local,  racial,  or  religious  interests.  Apart,  indeed,  from 
the  National  Liberals  and  the  Socialists,  it  cannot  be  said  that  any  one 
of  the  German  political  groups,  large  or  small,  is  broadly  national,  in 
either  its  tenets  or  its  constituency.  The  Guelfs,  or  Hanoverische 
Rechtspartei,  comprise  the  irreconcilables  among  the  old  Hanoverian 
nobility  who  refuse  to  recognize  the  validity  of  the  extinction  of  the 
ancient  Hanoverian  dynasty  by  the  deposing  of  George  V.  in  1866. 
As  late  as  1898  they  returned  to  the  Reichstag  nine  members.  In  1903 
they  elected  but  five,  and  in  1907  their  representation  was  reduced  to  a 
single  deputy.  In  1912  their  quota  became  again  five.  The  Poles  com- 
prise the  Slavic  voters  of  the  districts  of  West  Prussia,  Posen,  and  Silesia, 
who  continue  to  send  to  the  Reichstag  members  who  protest  against 
the  incorporation  of  the  Poles  in  Prussia  and  in  the  Empire.  At  the 
elections  of  1903  they  secured  sixteen  seats,  at  those  of  1907  twenty, 
and  at  those  of  1912  eighteen.  The  Danes  of  northern  Schleswig  keep 
up  some  demand  for  annexation  to  Denmark,  and  measures  looking 
toward  Germanization  are  warmly  resented;  but  the  number  of  people 
concerned — not  more  than  150,000 — is  so  small  that  their  political 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  233 

power  is  almost  nil.  They  have,  as  a  rule,  but  a  single  spokesman 
in  the  Reichstag.  The  Alsatians  comprise  the  autonomists  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  and  the  Antisemites  form  a  group  whose  original  purpose  was 
resistance  to  Jewish  influence  and  interests. 

IV.  PARTY  POLITICS  AFTER  1878 

Shifting  "  Government  "  Parties.— To  rehearse  here  the  details 
of^German  party  history  during  the  period  since  the  Government's 
break  with  the  Liberals  in  1878  is  impossible.  A  few  of  the  larger  facts 
only  may  be  mentioned.  Between  1878  and  1887  there  was  in  the 
Reichstag  no  one  great  party,  nor  even  any  stable  coalition  of  parties, 
upon  which  the  Government  could  rely  for  support.  For  the  time 
being,  in  1879,  Bismarck  allied  with  the  Centre  to  bring  about  the  adop- 
tion of  his  newly-framed  policy  of  protection  and  of  the  famous  Franken- 
stein clause  relative  to  the  matricular  contributions  of  the  states.1 
The  National  Liberals,  left  in  the  lurch,  broke  up,  and  in  1881  the 
remnant  of  the  party  was  able  to  obtain  only  forty-five  seats.  After  the 
elections  of  that  year  the  Centre  commanded  in  the  Reichstag  a  plurality 
of  forty.  The  upshot  was  that,  in  the  effort  to  procure  the  dependable 
support  of  the  Centre,  the  Government  gradually  abandoned  the 
Kulturkampf,  and  for  a  time  the  Centre  virtually  succeeded  to  the 
position  occupied  prior  to  1878  by  the  National  Liberals.  The  elec- 
tions of  1887,  however,  again  changed  the  situation.  The  Centre  re- 
tained a  plurality  of  some  twenty  seats,  but  the  Conservatives,  Free 
Conservatives,  and  National  Liberals  formed  a  coalition  and  between 
them  obtained  a  total  of  220  seats  and,  accordingly,  the  control  of  the 
Reichstag.  Thereupon  the  Conservatives  became  the  Government's 
principal  reliance  and  the  Centre  dropped  for  a  time  into  a  position 
of  neutrality.  At  the  elections  of  1890  the  coalition,  which  in  truth 
had  been  built  up  by  the  Government  on  the  basis  of  a  cartel,  or  agree- 
ment, suffered  heavy  losses.  Of  397  seats  it  carried  only  i3o,2  while  the 
Centre  alone  procured  116.  Coincident  with  the  overturn  came  the 
dismissal  of  Bismarck  and  the  elevation  to  the  chancellorship  of  General 
von  Caprivi.  Throughout  his  years  of  office  (1890-1894)  Caprivi  was 
able  to  rely  habitually  upon  the  support  of  no  single  party  or  group  of 
parties,  and  for  the  enactment  of  its  measures  the  Government  was 

1  This  measure  provided  that  each  year  all  proceeds  from  the  Imperial  customs 
and  tobacco  tax  in  excess  of  130,000,000  marks  should  be  distributed  among  the 
several  states  in  proportion  to  their  population.    Its  author  was  Frankenstein,  a 
leader  of  the  Centre. 

2  Conservatives  65,  Free  Conservatives  24,  National  Liberals  41. 


234  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

obliged  to  seek  assistance  now  in  one  quarter  and  now  in  another, 
rdii^g  as  circumstances  dictated. 

he  Agrarian  Movement  and  the  Rise  of  the  Bloc.  — Two  or 
three  developments  of  the  period  stand  out  with  some  distinctness. 
One  was  the  break-up,  apparently  for  all  time,  of  the  Fortschrittpartei, 
or  Radical  party,  in  consequence  of  the  elections  of  1893.  A  second 
was  the  rise  of  the  Government's  prolonged  contest  with  the  Agrarians. 
The  Agrarian  group,  of  which  indeed  one  hears  as  early  as  1876,  com- 
prised principally  the  grain-growing  landholders  of  northern  and  eastern 
Germany.  By  treaties  concluded  in  1892-1894  with  Austria-Hungary, 
Italy,  Belgium,  Russia,  and  other  nations,  German  import  duties  on 
grain  were  considerably  reduced  in  return  for  advantages  given  to 
German  manufacturers.  Low  duties  meant  cheap  foodstuffs,  and  in 
the  negotiation  of  these  treaties  the  Government  found  itself  supported 
with  enthusiasm  not  only  by  the  Centre,  but  also  by  the  Social  Demo- 
crats and  the  surviving  Radicals.  The  Conservatives  were  divided. 
Those  of  Agrarian  sympathies  (especially  the  Prussian  landholders) 
allied  themselves  with  the  forces  of  opposition.  But  the  remainder  gave 
the  Government  some  measure  of  support.  And  from  this  last-mentioned 
fact  arose  a  final  political  development  of  large  significance  during  the 
Caprivi  period,  namely,  the  creation  of  that  bloc,  or  affiliation,  of  Centre 
and  Conservatives  (popularly  referred  to  as  the  "blue-black"  bloc) 
upon  which  the  Government  was  destined  regularly  to  rely  through 
upwards  of  a  decade  and  a  half.  During  the  chancellorship  of  Prince 
Chlodwig  Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst  (1894-1900)  the  struggle  with 
the  Agrarians  was  continued  and  the  preponderance  of  the  bloc  became 
an  established  fact.  Finally,  should  be  mentioned  the  rapidly  accelerat- 
ing growth  of  the  Social  Democracy.  In  1893  the  popular  party  cast 
a  total  of  1,876,738  votes  and  elected  forty-four  representatives.  In 
1896  its  vote  was  2,007,076  and  the  number  of  members  elected  was 
fifty-seven.  In  1903  its  vote  rose  to  the  enormous  proportions  of 
3,008,000  (24  per  cent  of  the  total,  and  larger  than  that  of  any  other 
single  party),  and  the  quota  in  the  Reichstag  was  increased  to  seventy- 
nine. 

250.  /The  Elections  of  1903  and  1907.— At  the  elections  of  1903  the 
5/0fr~suffered  numerically  a  loss  of  strength.  The  Centre  obtained  102 
seats,  the  Conservatives  53,  and  the  Free  Conservatives,  or  "Party  of 
the  Empire,"  22 — an  aggregate  of  only  177.  By  deft  management, 
however,  Chancellor  von  Biilow  (1900-1908)  contrived  to  play  off  through 
several  years  the  opposing  forces,  and  so  to  preserve,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  the  working  efficiency  of  the  Government  coalition.  The  elec- 
tions of  January,  1907,  brought  on  by  a  dissolution  of  the  Reichstag  after 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  235 

the  refusal  of  that  body  to  vote  the  Government's  colonial  estimates, 
were  of  interest  principally  by  reason  of  the  continued  show  of  strength 
of  the  Centre  and  the  falling  off  of  the  Social  Democrats  in  then-  repre- 
sentation in  the  Reichstag.  In  the  practical  working  out  of  political 
forces  it  had  come  about  that  the  Centre  occupied  in  the  chamber  a 
pivotal  position  of  such  consequence  that  the  Government  was  in  effect 
absolutely  dependent  upon  the  vote  of  that  party  for  the  enactment 
of  its  measures.  Naturally  enough,  the  party,  realizing  its  power,  was 
prone  to  put  its  support  upon  a  contractual  basis  and  to  drive  with  the 
Government  a  hard  bargain  for  the  votes  which  it  commanded.  While 
hardly  in  a  position  to  get  on  without  Clerical  assistance,  the  Government 
in  1907  would  have  been  willing  enough  to  see  the  Centre's  power  and 
independence  broken.  Not  only,  however,  did  the  Centre  not  lose 
seats  by  that  contest;  it  in  fact  realized  a  gain  of  two.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  was  compensation  for  the  Government  in  the  fact  that  the 
Social  Democrats  fell  back.  They  polled  a  total  of  3,250,000  popular 
votes,  as  compared  with  3,008,000  in  1903;  but  by  reason  of  the  anti- 
quated distribution  of  seats  which  prevails  in  the  Empire,  the  unusual 
vote  polled  by  other  parties,  and  also  the  unusual  co-operation  of  the 
party  groups  opposed  to  the  Social  Democrats,  their  representation 
in  the  Reichstag  was  cut  from  79  to  43.1 

1  The  total  number  of  popular  votes  cast  in  the  election  was  10,857,000,  of  which 
number  government  candidates  received  4,962,000,  and  opposition  candidates 
5,895,000.  The  numerical  strength  of  the  various  elements  composing  the  Reichs- 
tag consequent  upon  the  elections  of  1903  and  1907  was  as  follows: 

1903  1907  Seats.          S.ea<5 

gained  lost 

Centre 102  104  2  o 

Conservatives 53  58  5  o 

Free  Conservatives 22  22  o  o 

National  Liberals 51  56  5  o 

Social  Democrats 79  43  o  36 

Radicals 42  50  ° 

Antisemites  and  Economic  Union ...  22  30  8  o 

Poles 16  20  4  o 

Liberal  Union 10  13  3  o 

Volkspartei  (Democrats  of  South)  6  7  i  o 

Alsatians.  .  . .  -. 10  7  o  3 

Guelfs  or  Hanoverians 5  i  o  4 

Danes i  i  o  o 

Independents o  7  7  o 

Total 397  397  43  43 


236  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

V.  PARTIES  SINCE  1907 

261.  The  Billow  Bloc. — The  period  covered  by  the  life  of  the  Reichs- 
tag elected  in  1907  was  remarkable  in  German  political  history  chiefly 
by  reason  of  the  prolonged  struggle  for  the  establishment  of  parlia- 
mentary government  which  took  place  within  it — a  struggle  which 
had  its  beginning,  indeed,  in  the  deadlock  by  which  the  dissolution  of 

1906  was  occasioned,  which  reached  its  climax  in  the  fiscal  debates  of 
1908-1909,  and  which  during  the  years  that  followed  gradually  subsided, 
leaving  both  the  status  of  parties  and  the  constitutional  order  of  the 
Empire  essentially  as  they  were  at  the  beginning.    Even  before  the 
dissolution  of  1906  the  Conservative-Centre  bloc  was  effectually  dis- 
solved, principally  by  the  defection  of  the  Centre,  and  through  upwards 
of  three  years  it  was  replaced  by  an  affiliation,  known  commonly  as  the 
"  Bulow  bloc"  of  the  Conservatives  and  the  Liberals.   This  combination, 
however,  was  never  substantial,  and  in  the  course  of  the  conflict  Over  the 
Government's  proposed  budget  of  November,  1908,  there  was  a  return 
to  the  old  alignment,  and  throughout  ensuing  years  the  Conservative- 
Clerical  bloc  remained  a  preponderating  factor  in  the  political  situation. 

252.  The  Elections  of  1912:  Parties  and  Issues. — The  Reichstag  of 

1907  was  dissolved  at  the  termination  of  its  five-year  period,  and  in 
January,  1912,  there  was  elected  a  new  chamber,  the  thirteenth  since 
the  creation  of  the  Empire.    The  contest  was  pre-eminently  one  of 
measures  rather  than  of  men,  but  the  public  interest  which  it  excited 
was  extraordinary.     Broadly,  the  line  was  drawn  between  the  Govern- 
ment and  the  parties  of  the  bloc,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  more  purely 
popular  parties,  especially  the  National  Liberals,  the  Radicals,  and  the 
Social  Democrats,  on  the  other;1  and  the  issues  were  chiefly  such  as 
were  supplied  by  the  spirit,  purposes,  and  methods  of  Chancellor  von 
Bethmann-Hollweg  and  his  Conservative-Clerical  allies.    Of  the  alleged 
reactionism  of  the  Government  parties  there  was  widespread  complaint. 
They  were  held  responsible  for  the  fiscal  reform  of  1909  which  imposed 
burdens  unduly  heavy  on  industry  and  commerce,  while  sparing  land 
and  invested  capital;  they  were  charged  with  re-establishing  the  yoke 

1  The  gravest  abuse  in  connection  with  the  conduct  of  campaigns  and  elections 
in  Germany  is  the  pressure  which  the  Government  brings  to  bear  systematically 
upon  the  enormous  official  population  and  upon  railway  employees  (alone  number- 
ing 600,000)  to  vote  Conservative,  or,  in  districts  where  there  is  no  Conservative 
candidate,  Centrist.  This  pressure  is  applied  through  the  local  bureaucratic 
organs,  principally  the  Landrath  of  the  Kreis,  who  not  uncommonly  is  a  youthful 
official  of  noble  origin,  related  to  some  important  landed  family,  and  a  rigid  Con- 
servative. It  has  been  estimated  that  official  influence  controls  a  million  votes  at 
every  national  election. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  237 

of  the  Catholic  Centre  upon  the  Lutheran  majority;  and  they  were 
reproached  for  having  failed  to  redeem  their  promise  to  liberalize  the 
antiquated  franchise  arrangements  of  Prussia.  The  Conservatives  in 
particular  were  attacked  on  the  ground  of  their  continued  monopoly 
of  patronage  and  of  power.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  most  important 
of  practical  issues  was  that  of  the  tariff.  Throughout  a  twelvemonth 
discontent  occasioned  by  the  high  cost  of  living  had  been  general  and  the 
Government  had  been  besought  by  municipalities,  workingmen's  organ- 
izations, and  political  societies  to  inaugurate  a  project  for  the  reduction 
of  the  duties  imposed  upon  imported  foodstuffs.  The  demand  was  in 
vain  and  the  country  was  given  to  understand  by  the  Chancellor  that 
the  Government,  under  Conservative-Agrarian  mastery,  would  stand 
or  fall  with  "protection  for  the  nation's  work  "  as  its  battle-cry.  Upon 
this  question  the  National  Liberals,  being  protectionist  by  inclination, 
stood  with  the  Government,  but  the  Radicals,  the  Social  Democrats,  and 
some  of  the  minor  groups  assumed  an  attitude  of  clear-cut  opposition. 

253.  The  Results  and  Their  Significance. — The  total  number  of 
candidates  in  the  397  constituencies  was  1,428.  The  Social  Democrats 
alone  had  a  candidate  in  every  constituency,  a  fact  which  emphasizes 
the  broadly  national  character  which  that  party  has  acquired.  The 
National  Liberals  had  candidates  in  200  constituencies,  the  Centre  in 
183,  the  Radicals  in  175,  and  the  Conservatives  in  132.  A  second  ballot 
was  required  in  191  constituencies,  or  nearly  one-half  of  the  whole 
number.  The  final  results  of  the  election  justified  completely  the  gen- 
eral expectation  of  observers  that  the  Social  Democrats  would  realize 
enormous  gains.  The  appeal  of  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  for  solidarity 
against  the  Socialists  had  no  such  effect  as  did  the  similar  appeal  of  von 
Biilow  in  1907.  The  tactfulness  and  personal  hold  of  the  Chancellor  was 
inferior  to  that  of  his  predecessor,  and  the  mass  of  the  nation  was  aroused 
in  1912  as  it  was  not  upon  the  earlier  occasion.  The  results  may  be 
tabulated  as  follows: 

Seats  Seats  acquired 

at  dissolution  by  elections  of  1912: 

Centre 103  90 

Conservatives 58  45 

Free  Conservatives 25  13 

Social  Democrats S3  no 

National  Liberals 51  44 

Radicals 49  4i 

Poles 20  18 

Antisemites  and  Economic  Union ...                    20  n 

Guelfs  or  Hanoverians i  5 

Alsatians,  Danes,  and  Independents.                    16  20 

Total 397  397 


238  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Two  of  the  three  parties  of  the  Left,  i.  e.,  the  National  Liberals  and 
the  Radicals,  suffered  substantial  losses,  but  the  victory  of  the  Social 
Democrats  was  so  sweeping  that  there  accrued  to  the  Left  as  a  whole 
a  net  gain  of  forty-two  seats.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  three  parties  of 
the  bloc  lost  heavily — in  the  aggregate  thirty-eight  seats.  The  number 
of  popular  votes  cast  for  candidates  of  the  bloc  was  approximately 
4,500,000;  that  for  candidates  of  the  Left  approximately  7,5oo,ooo.2 
In  Berlin,  five  of  whose  six  constituencies  were  represented  already  by 
Social  Democrats,  there  was  a  notable  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  so- 
cialists to  carry  the  "Kaiser  district"  in  which  is  located  the  Kaiserhof, 
or  Imperial  residence,  and  the  seat  of  the  Government  itself.  The 
attempt  failed,  but  it  was  only  at  the  second  ballot,  and  by  the  narrow 
margin  of  seven  votes,  that  the  socialist  candidate  was  defeated  by  his 
Radical  opponent.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  parties  of  the  Left 
are  entirely  separate  and  they  are  by  no  means  able  always  to  combine 
in  action  upon  a  public  question.  The  ideal  voiced  by  the  publicist 
Naumann,  "from  Bassermann  to  Bebel,"  meaning  that  the  National 
Liberals  under  the  leadership  of  Bassermann  should,  through  the 
medium  of  the  Radicals,  amalgamate  for  political  purposes  with  the 
Social  Democrats  under  Bebel,  has  not  as  yet  been  realized.  None 
the  less  there  has  long  been  community  of  interest  and  of  policy,  and 
the  elections  of  1912  made  it  possible  for  the  first  time  for  a  combination 
of  the  three  groups  and  their  allies  to  outweigh  decisively  any  combina- 
tion which  the  parties  of  the  bloc  and  their  allies  can  oppose.  Before 
the  election  there  was  a  clear  Government  majority  of  eighty-nine; 
after  it,  an  opposition  majority  of,  at  the  least,  fourteen.  When,  in 
February,  1912,  the  new  Reichstag  was  opened,  it  was  only  by  the  most 
dexterous  tactics  on  the  part  of  the  bloc  that  the  election  of  the  socialist 
leader  Bebel  to  the  presidency  of  the  chamber  was  averted. 

264.  The  Parties  To-day:  Conservatives  and  Centre. — The  principal 
effect  of  the  election  would  seem  to  be  to  accentuate  the  already  mani- 
fest tendency  of  Germany  to  become  divided  between  two  great  hostile 
camps,  the  one  representative  of  the  military,  bureaucratic,  agrarian, 
financial  classes  and,  in  general,  the  forces  of  resistance  to  change,  the 
other  representative  of  modern  democratic  forces,  extreme  and  in  prin- 
ciple even  revolutionary.  Leaving  out  of  account  the  minor  particularist 
groups,  the  most  reactionary  of  existing  parties  is  the  Conservatives, 

1  Many  of  the  socialist  victories  were,  of  course,  at  the  expense  of  the  National 
Liberals  and  Radicals. 

2  The  number  of  electors  inscribed  on  the  lists  was  14,236,722.    The  number 
who  actually  voted  was  12,188,337.    The  exact  vote  of  the  Social  Democrats  was 
4,238,919;  of  the  National  Liberals,  1,671,297;  of  the  Radicals,  1,556,549;  of  the 
Centre,  2,012,990;  and  of  the  Conservatives,  1,149,916. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  239 

whose  strength  lies  principally  in  the  rural  provinces  of  Prussia  along 
the  Baltic.  The  most  radical  is  the  Social  Democrats,  whose  strength 
is  pretty  well  diffused  through  the  states  of  the  Empire  but  is  massed, 
in  the  main,  in  the  cities.  Between  the  two  stand  the  Centre,  the  Radi- 
cals, and  the  National  Liberals.  The  Centre  has  always  included  both  an 
aristocratic  and  a  popular  element,  being,  indeed,  more  nearly  repre- 
sentative of  all  classes  of  people  in  the  Empire  than  is  any  other  party. 
Its  numerical  strength  is  drawn  from  the  peasants  and  the  workingmen, 
and  in  order  to  maintain  its  hold  in  the  teeth  of  the  appeal  of  socialism 
it  has  been  obliged  to  make  large  concessions  in  the  direction  of  liberal- 
ism. At  all  points  except  in  respect  to  the  interests  of  the  Catholic 
Church  it  has  sought  to  be  moderate  and  progressive,  and  it  should 
be  observed  that  it  has  abandoned  long  since  its  irreconcilable  attitude 
on  religion.  Geographically,  its  strength  lies  principally  in  the  south, 
especially  in  Bavaria. 

256.  The  Social  Democrats. — Nominally  revolutionary,  the  German 
Social  Democracy  comprises  in  fact  a  very  orderly  organization  whose 
economic-political  tenets  are  at  many  points  so  rational  that  they 
command  wide  support  among  people  who  do  not  bear  the  party  name. 
Throughout  a  generation  the  party  has  grown  steadily  more  practical 
in  its  demands  and  more  opportunist  in  its  tactics.  Instead  of  opposing 
reforms  undertaken  on  the  basis  of  existing  institutions,  as  it  once  was 
accustomed  to  do,  in  the  hope  of  bringing  about  the  establishment  of 
a  socialistic  state  by  one  grand  coup,  it  labors  for  such  reforms  as  are 
adjudged  attainable  and  contents  itself  with  recurring  only  occasionally 
and  incidentally  to  its  ultimate  ideal.  The  supreme  governing  authority 
of  the  party  is  a  congress  composed  of  six  delegates  from  each  electoral 
district  of  the  Empire,  the  socialist  members  of  the  Reichstag,  and  the 
members  of  the  party's  executive  committee.  This  congress  convenes 
annually  to  regulate  the  organization  of  the  party,  to  discuss  party 
policies,  and  to  take  action  upon  questions  submitted  by  the  party  mem- 
bers. Nominally,  the  principles  of  the  party  are  those  of  Karl  Marx, 
and  its  platform  is  the  "Erfurt  programme"  of  1891,  contemplating  the 
abolition  of  class  government  and  of  classes  themselves,  the  termination 
of  every  kind  of  exploitation  of  labor  and  oppression  of  men,  the  destruc- 
tion of  capitalism,  and  the  inauguration  of  an  economic  regime  under 
which  the  production  and  distribution  of  goods  shall  be  controlled  by  the 
state  exclusively.  The  Radical  Socialists,  i.  e.,  the  old-line  members  of 
the  party,  cling  to  these  time-honored  articles  of  faith.  But  the  mass 
of  the  younger  element  of  the  party,  ably  led  by  Edward  Bernstein — the 
"Revisionists,"  as  they  call  themselves — consider  that  the  Marxist 
doctrines  are  in  numerous  respects  erroneous,  and  they  are  insisting 


240  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

that  the  Erfurt  programme  shall  be  overhauled  and  brought  into  accord 
with  the  practical  and  positive  spirit  of  the  party  to-day.  Except 
Bebel  and  Kautsky,  every  socialist  leader  of  note  in  Germany  at  the 
present  time  is  identified  with  the  revisionist  movement.1  The  political 
significance  of  this  situation  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  "new  socialists" 
stand  ready  to  co-operate  systematically  with  progressive  elements  of 
whatsoever  name  or  antecedents.  Already  the  socialists  of  Baden, 
Wiirttemberg,  and  Bavaria  have  voted  for  the  local  state  budgets  and 
have  participated  in  court  functions,  and  upon  numerous  occasions  they 
have  worked  hand  in  hand,  not  only  at  elections  but  in  the  Reichstag 
and  in  diets  and  councils,  with  the  National  Liberals  and  the  Radicals. 
For  the  future  of  sane  liberalism  in  Germany  this  trend  of  the  party  in 
the  direction  of  co-operative  and  constructive  effort  augurs  well.  At 
the  annual  congress  held  at  Chemnitz  in  September,  1912,  the  issue  of 
revisionism  was  debated  at  length  and  with  much  feeling,  but  an  open 
breach  within  the  party  was  averted  and  Herr  Bebel  was  again  elected 
party  president.  It  was  shown  upon  this  occasion  that  the  party 
membership  numbered  970,112,  a  gain  of  133,550  during  the  previous 
year.  It  need  hardly  be  observed  that  of  the  millions  of  men  who  in 
these  days  vote  for  Social  Democratic  candidates  for  office  hardly  a 
fourth  are  identified  with  the  formal  party  organization!2 

1  Herr  Bebel  died  August  13,  1913. 

2  Two  important  works  of  recent  date  dealing  with  the  history  and  character  of 
political  parties  in  Germany  are  C.  Grotewald,  Die  Parteien  des  deutschen  Reichs- 
tags.   Band  I.  Der  Politik  des  deutschen  Reiches  in  Einzeldarstellungen  (Leipzig, 
1908);  and  O.  Stillich,  Die  politischen  Parteien  in  Deutschland.    Band  I.  Die  Kon- 
servativen  (Leipzig,  1908),  Band  II.  Der  Liberalismus  (Leipzig,  1911).   The  second 
is  a  portion  of  a  scholarly  work  planned  to  be  in  five  volumes.    A  brief  treatise  is 
F.  Wegener,  Die  deutschkonservative  Partei  und  ihre  Aufgaben  fur  die  Gegenwart 
(Berlin,  1908).    An  admirable  study  of  the  Centre  is  L.  Goetze,  Das  Zentrum,  eine 
Konfessionelle  Partie;  Beitrage  zur  seiner  Geschichte  (Bonn,  1906).    The  rise  of 
the  Centre  is  well  described  in  L.  Hahn,  Geschichte  des  Kulturkampfes  (Berlin, 
1881).    On  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Social  Democracy  see  E.  Milhaud,  La 
democratic  socialiste  allemande  (Paris,  1903);  C.  Andler,  Origines  du  socialisme 
d'etat  en  Allemagne  (Paris,  1906);  E.  Kirkup,  History  of  Socialism  (London, 
1906);  W.  Sombart,  Socialism  (New  York,  1898);  W.  Dawson,  Bismarck  and  State 
Socialism  (London,  1891);  J.  Perrin,  The  German  Social  Democracy,  in  North 
American  Review,  Oct.,  1910.    Under  the  title  "Chroniques  politiques"  there  is 
printed  in  the  Annales  (since  1911  the  Revue)  des  Sciences  Politiques  every  year  an 
excellent  review  of  the  current  politics  of  Germany,  as  of  other  European  nations. 
Other  articles  of  value  are:  M.  Caudel,  Les  61ections  allemandes  du  16  juin,  1898, 
et  le  nouveau  Reichstag,  in  Annales  de  Vficole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Nov., 
1898;  J.  Hahn,  Une  61ection  au  Reichstag  allemand,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Poli- 
tiques, Nov.,  1903;  G.  Isambert,  Le  parti  du  centre  en  Allemagne  et  les  elections  de 
janvier-fevrier  1907,  ibid.,  March,  1907;  P.  Matter,  La  arise  du  chancelier  en 
Allemagne,  ibid.,  Sept.,  1909;  A.  Marvaud,  La  presse  politique  allemande,  in 
Questions  Diplomatique*  et  ColonialeSj  March  16  and  April  i,  1910.    There  are 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  241 


VI.  LAW  AND  JUSTICE 
/^-^ 

266.  Dual  Character. — Upon  the  subject  of  the  administration  of 
justice/the  Imperial  constitution  of  1871  contained  but  a  single  clause, 
by  which  there  was  vested  in  the  Empire  power  of  "general  legislation 
concerning  the  law  of  obligations,  criminal  law,  commercial  law  and 
commercial  paper,  and  judicial  procedure."  By  an  amendment  adopted 
December  20, 1873,  the  clause  was  modified  to  read,  "general  legislation 
as  to  the  whole  domain  of  civil  and  criminal  law,  and  of  judicial  pro- 
cedure." 1  Each  of  the  federated  states  has  always  had,  and  still  has; 
its  own  judicial  system,  and  justice  is  administered  all  but  exclusively 
in  courts  that  belong  to  the  states.  These  courts,  however,  have  been 
declared  to  be  also  courts  of  the  Empire,  and,  to  the  end  that  they  may 
be  systematized  and  that  conditions  of  justice  may  be  made  uniform 
throughout  the  land,  the  federal  government  has  not  hesitated  to  avail 
itself  of  the  regulative  powers  conferred  in  1871  and  amplified  in  1873 
in  the  constitutional  provisions  which  have  been  cited. 

257.  Diversity  of  Law  Prior  to  1871.— In  the  first  place,  there  has  been 
bright  about  within  the  past  generation  a  unification  of  German  law 
so  thoroughgoing  in  character  as  to  be  worthy  of  comparison  with  the 
systematization  of  the  law  of  France  which  was  accomplished  through 
the  agency  of  the  Code  Napoleon.  In  1871  there  were  comprised  within 
the  Empire  more  than  two  score  districts  each  of  which  possessed  an 
essentially  distinct  body  of  civil  and  criminal  law;  and,  to  add  to  the 
confusion,  the  boundaries  of  these  districts,  though  at  one  time  coin- 
cident with  the  limits  of  the  various  political  divisions  of  the  country, 
were  no  longer  so.  The  case  of  Prussia  was  typical.  In  1871  the  older 
Prussian  provinces  were  living  under  a  Prussian  code  promulgated  in 
1794;  the  Rhenish  provinces  maintained  the  Code  Napoleon,  established 
by  Napoleon  in  all  Germany  west  of  the  Rhine;  in  the  Pomeranian 
districts  there  were  large  survivals  of  Swedish  law;  while  the  territories 

valuable  chapters  on  German  politics  in  W.  Dawson,  The  Evolution  of  Modern 
Germany  (London,  1908)  and  O.  Eltzbacher  (or  J.  Ellis  Barker),  Modern  Germany, 
her  Political  and  Economic  Problems  (new  ed.,  London,  1912).  For  a  sketch  of 
party  history  during  the  period  1871-1894  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II., 
Chap.  7.  An  excellent  survey  of  the  period  1906-1911  is  contained  in  P.  Matter, 
D'un  Reichstag  a  1'autre,  in  Revue  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July-Aug.,  1911.  On 
the  elections  of  1912  see  G.  Blondd,  Les  elections  ail  Reichstag  et  la  situation 
nouvelle  des  partis,  in  Le  Correspondent,  Jan.  25,  1912;  J.  W.  Jenks,  The  German 
Elections,  in  Review  of  Reviews,  Jan.,  1912;  A.  Quist,  Les  elections  du  Reichstag 
rdlemand,  in  Revue  Socialiste,  Feb.  15,  1912;  and  W.  Martin,  La  crise  constitution- 
•selle  et  politique  en  Allemagne,  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Aug.  10, 1912. 
1  Art.  4.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  328. 


242  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

acquired  after  the  war  of  1866  had  each  its  indigenous  legal  system. 
Two  German  states  only  in  1871  possessed  a  fairly  uniform  body  of  law. 
Baden  had  adopted  a  German  version  of  the  Code  Napoleon,  and 
Saxony,  in  1865,  had  put  in  operation  a  code  of  her  own  devising.  At 
no  period  of  German  history  had  there  been  either  effective  law-making 
or  legal  codification  which  was  applicable  to  the  whole  of  the  territory 
contained  within  the  Empire.  In  the  domain  of  the  civil  law,  in  that  of 
the  criminal  law,  and  in  that  of  procedure  the  diversity  was  alike 
obvious  and  annoying. 

258.  Preparation  of  the  Codes. — German  legal  reform  since  1871 
has  consisted  principally  in  the  formation  and  adoption  of  successive 
codes,  each  of  which  has  aimed  at  essential  completeness  within  a  given 
branch  of  law.  The  task  had  been  begun,  indeed,  before  1871.  As 
early  as  1861  the  states  had  agreed  upon  a  code  relating  to  trade  and 
banking,  and  this  code  had  been  readopted,  in  1869,  by  the  Confedera- 
tion of  1867. 1  In  1869  a  code  of  criminal  law  had  been  worked  out  for 
the  Confederation,  and  in  1870  a  code  relating  to  manufactures  and 
labor.  Upon  the  establishment  of  the  Empire,  in  1871,  there  was 
created  a  commission  to  which  was  assigned  the  task  of  drawing  up 
regulations  for  civil  procedure  and  for  criminal  procedure,  and  also  a 
plan  for  the  reorganization  of  the  courts.  Beginning  with  a  scheme 
of  civil  procedure,  published  in  December,  1872,  the  commission  brought 
in  an  elaborate  project  upon  each  of  the  three  subjects.  The  code  of 
civil  procedure,  by  which  many  important  reforms  were  introduced 
in  the  interest  of  publicity  and  speed,  was  well  received.  That  relating 
to  criminal  procedure,  proposing  as  it  did  to  abolish  throughout  the 
Empire  trial  by  jury,  was,  however,  vigorously  opposed,  and  the  upshot 
was  that  all  three  reports  were  referred  to  a  new  commission,  by  which 
the  original  projects  relating  to  criminal  procedure  and  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  courts  were  completely  remodelled.  In  the  end  the  revised 
projects  were  adopted.  October  i,  1879,  there  went  into  effect  a  group 
of  fundamental  laws  under  which  the  administration  of  justice  through- 
out the  Empire  has  been  controlled  from  that  day  to  the  present.  The 
most  important  of  these  was  the  Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz,  or  Law  of 
Judicial  Organization,  enacted  January  27,  1877;  the  Civilprozessord- 
nung,  or  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  of  January  30, 1877;  and  the  Strafpro- 
zessordnung,  or  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  of  February  i,  1877. 

It  remained  only  to  effect  a  codification  of  the  civil  law.   A  committee 

constituted  for  the  purpose  completed  its  work  in  1887,  and  the  draft 

submitted  by  it  was  placed  for  revision  in  the  hands  of  a  new  commission, 

by  which  it  was  reported  in  1895.    In  an  amended  form  the  Civil  Code 

1  It  was  replaced  by  a  new  code  May  10,  1897. 


THE  IMPERIAL  GOVERNMENT  243 

was  approved  by  the  Reichstag,  August  18,  1896,  and  it  was  put  in 
operation  January  i ,  1900.  Excluding  matters  pertaining  to  land  tenure 
(which  are  left  to  be  regulated  by  the  states),  the  Code  deals  not  only 
with  all  of  the  usual  subjects  of  civil  law  but  also  with  subjects  arising 
from  the  contact  of  private  law  and  public  law.1 

259.  The  Inferior  Courts. — By  these  and  other  measures  it  has  been 
bjx>ugnt  about  that  throughout  the  Empire  justice  is  administered 
in  tribunals  whose  officials  are  appointed  by  the  local  governments 
and  which  render  decisions  in  their  name,  but  whose  organization, 
powers,  and  rules  of  procedure  are  regulated  minutely  by  federal  law. 
The  hierarchy  of  tribunals  provided  for  in  the  Law  of  Judicial  Organiza- 
tion comprises  courts  of  four  grades.  At  the  bottom  are  the  Amtsger- 
ichte,  of  which  there  are  approximately  two  thousand  in  the  Empire. 
These  are  courts  of  first  instance,  consisting  ordinarily  of  but  a  single 
judge.  In  civil  cases  their  jurisdiction  extends  to  the  sum  of  three 
hundred  marks;  in  criminal,  to  matters  involving  a  fine  of  not  more 
than  six  hundred  marks  or  imprisonment  of  not  over  three  months.  In 
criminal  cases  the  judge  sits  with  two  Schoffen  (sheriffs)  selected  by 
lot  from  the  jury  lists.  Besides  litigious  business  the  Amtsgerichte 
have  charge  of  the  registration  of  land  titles,  the  drawing  up  of  wills, 
guardianship,  and  other  local  interests. 

Next  above  the  Amtsgerichte  are  the  173  district  courts,  or  Land- 
gerichte,  each  composed  of  a  president  and  a  variable  number  of  associ- 
ate judges.  Each  Landgericht  is  divided  into  a  civil  and  a  criminal 
chamber.  There  may,  indeed,  be  other  chambers,  as  for  example  a 
Kammer  fur  Handelssachen,  or  chamber  for  commercial  cases.  The 
president  presides  over  a  full  bench;  a  director  over  each  chamber. 
The  Landgericht  exercises  a  revisory  jurisdiction  over  judgments  of 
the  Amtsgericht,  and  possesses  a  more  extended  original  jurisdiction 
in  both  civil  and  criminal  matters.  The  criminal  chamber,  consisting 
of  five  judges  (of  whom  four  are  necessary  to  convict),  is  competent, 
for  example,  to  try  cases  of  felony  punishable  with  imprisonment  for 
a  term  not  exceeding  five  years.  For  the  trial  of  many  sorts  of  criminal 
cases  there  are  special  Schwurgerichte,  or  jury  courts,  which  sit  under 
the  presidency  of  three  judges  of  the  Landgericht.  A  jury  consists 
of  twelve  members,  of  whom  eight  are  necessary  to  convict. 

Still  above  the  Landgerichte  are  the  Oberlandesgerichte,  of  which 
there  are  twenty-eight  in  the  Empire,  each  consisting  of  seven  judges. 
The  Oberlandesgerichte  are  courts  of  appellate  jurisdiction  largely. 

1 A  convenient  manual  for  English  readers  is  E.  M.  Borchard,  Guide  to  the  Law 
and  Legal  Literature  of  Germany  (Washington,  1912),  the  first  of  a  series  of  guides 
to  European  law  in  preparation  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 


244  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Each  is  divided  into  a  civil  and  a  criminal  senate.  There  is  a  president 
of  the  full  court  and  a  similar  official  for  each  senate.1 

260.  The  Reichsgericht. — At  the  apex  of  the  system  stands  the 
Reichsgericht  (created  by  law  of  October  i,  1879),  which,  apart  from 
certain  administrative,  military,  and  consular  courts,2  is  the  only 
German  tribunal  of  an  exclusively  Imperial,  or  federal,  character. 
It  exercises  original  jurisdiction  in  cases  involving  treason  against  the 
Empire  and  hears  appeals  from  the  consular  courts  and  from  the 
state  courts  on  questions  of  Imperial  law.  Its  members,  ninety-two 
in  number,  are  appointed  by  the  Emperor  for  life,  on  nomination  of 
the  Bundesrath,  and  they  are  organized  in  six  civil  and  four  criminal 
senates.  Sittings  are  held  invariably  at  Leipzig,  in  the  kingdom  of 
Saxony. 

All  judges  in  the  courts  of  the  states  are  appointed  by  the  sovereigns 
of  the  respective  states.  The  Imperial  law  prescribes  a  minimum  of 
qualifications  based  on  professional  study  and  experience,  the  state 
being  left  free  to  impose  any  additional  qualifications  that  may  be 
desired.  All  judges  are  appointed  for  life  and  all  receive  a  salary  which 
may  not  be  reduced;  and  there  are  important  guarantees  against  arbi- 
trary transfer  from  one  position  to  another,  as  well  as  other  practices 
that  might  operate  to  diminish  the  judge's  impartiality  and  in- 
dependence.3 

1  In  Bavaria  alone  there  is  an  Oberste  Landesgericht,  with  twenty-one  judges. 
Its  relation  to  the  Bavarian  Oberlandesgerichte  is  that  of  an  appellate  tribunal. 

2  The  highest  administrative  court  is  the  Oberverwaltungsgericht,  whose  mem- 
bers are  appointed  for  life.     Under  specified  conditions,  the  "committees"  of 
circles,  cities,  and  districts  exercise  inferior  administrative  jurisdiction.    For  the 
adjustment  of  disputed  or  doubtful  jurisdictions  there  stands  between  the  ordinary 
and  the  administrative  tribunals  a  Gerichtshof  fur  Kompetenz-konflikte,  or  Court 
of  Conflicts,  consisting  of  eleven  judges  appointed  for  life. 

3  On  the  German  judiciary  see  Howard,  The  German  Empire,  Chap.  9;  La- 
band,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  83-94;  C.  Morhain,  De  I'em- 
pire  allemand  (Paris,  1886),  Chap.  9. 


CHAPTER  XII 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA— THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

I.  THE  GERMAN  STATES  AND  THEIR  GOVERNMENTS 

261.  Variations  of  Type. — Within  the  bounds  of  Germany  to-day 
there  are  twenty-five  states  and  one  Imperial  territory  with  certain 
attributes  of  statehood,  Alsace-Lorraine.  During  the  larger  portion 
of  the  nineteenth  century  each  of  these  states  (and  of  the  several  which 
no  longer  exist)  was  possessed  of  substantial  sovereignty,  and  each 
maintained  its  own  arrangements  respecting  governmental  forms  and 
procedure.  Under  the  leadership  of  Prussia,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
the  loose  Confederation  of  1815  was  transformed,  during  the  years 
1866-1871,  into  an  Imperial  union,  federal  but  yet  vigorous  and  inde- 
structible, and  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  Empire  was  in- 
trusted an  enormous  aggregate  of  governmental  powers.  The  powers 
conferred  were,  however,  not  wholly  abstracted  from  the  original 
prerogatives  of  the  individual  states.  In  a  very  appreciable  measure 
they  were  powers,  rather,  of  a  supplementary  character,  by  virtue  of 
which  the  newly  created  central  government  was  enabled  to  do,  on  a 
broadly  national  scale,  what,  in  the  lack  of  any  such  central  govern- 
ment, there  would  have  been  neither  means  of  doing,  nor  occasion  for 
doing,  at  all.  Only  at  certain  points,  as,  for  example,  in  respect  to  the 
levying  of  customs  duties  and  of  taxes,  was  the  original  independence 
of  the  individual  state  seriously  impaired  by  the  terms  of  the  new 
arrangement. 

The  consequence  is  that,  speaking  broadly,  each  of  the  German 
states  maintains  to  this  day  a  government  which  is  essentially  com- 
plete within  itself.  No  one  of  these  governments  covers  quite  all 
of  the  ground  which  falls  within  the  range  of  jurisdiction  of  a  sovereign 
state;  each  is  cut  into  at  various  points  by  the  superior  authority  of  the 
Empire;  but  each  is  sufficiently  ample  to  be  capable  of  continuing  to 
run,  were  all  of  the  other  governments  of  Germany  instantly  to  be 
blotted  out.1  Of  the  twenty-five  state  governments,  three — those  of 

1  The  best  survey  in  English  of  the  governments  of  the  German  states  is  that  in 
Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  Chap.  6.  Fuller  and  more  recent  is 
G.  Combes  de  Lestrade,  Les  monarchies  de  1'empire  allemand  (Paris,  1904).  The 

24S 


246  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  free  cities  of  Bremen,  Hamburg,  and  Liibeck — are  aristocratic  re- 
publics; all  the  others  are  monarchies.  Among  the  monarchies  there 
are  four  kingdoms:  Prussia,  Bavaria,  Saxony,  and  Wiirttemberg;  six 
grand-duchies:  Baden,  Hesse,  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Mecklenburg- 
Strelitz,  Oldenburg,  and  Saxe- Weimar;  five  duchies:  Anhalt,  Bruns- 
wick, Saxe-Altenburg,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  and  Saxe-Meiningen;  and 
seven  principalities:  Lippe,  Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt,  Schwarzburg- 
Sonderhausen,  Schaumburg-Lippe,  Reuss  Alterer  Linie,  Reuss  Jiing- 
erer  Linie,  and  Waldeck-Pyrmont. 

262.  The  Preponderance  of  Prussia. — From  whatever  angle  one 
approaches  German  public  affairs,  the  fact  that  stands  out  with  great- 
est distinctness  is  the  preponderant  position  occupied  by  the  kingdom 
of  Prussia.    How  it  was  that  Prussia  became  the  virtual  creator  of  the 
Empire,  and  how  it  is  that  Prussia  so  dominates  the  Imperial  govern- 
ment that  that  government  and  the  Prussian  are  at  times  all  but 
inextricable,  has  already  been  pointed  out.1    Wholly  apart  from  the 
sheer  physical  fact  that  134,616  square  miles  of  Germany's  208,780, 
and  40,163,333  people  of  the  Empire's  64,903,423,  are  Prussian,  the 
very  conditions  under  which  the  Imperial  organization  of  the  present 
day  came  into  being  predetermined  that  Prussia  and  things  Prussian 
should  enjoy  unfailing  pre-eminence  in  all  that  pertains  to  German 
government  and  politics.     Both  because  they  are  extended  imme- 
diately over  a  country  almost  two-thirds  as  large  as  France,  and 
because  of  their  peculiar  relation  to  the  political  system  of  the  Empire, 
the  institutions  of  Prussia  call  for  somewhat  detailed  consideration. 

II.  THE  RISE  or  CONSTITUTIONALISM  IN  PRUSSIA 

263.  Regeneration  in  the  Napoleonic  Period. — By  reason  of  the 
vacillating  policies  of  her  sovereign,  Frederick  William  III.,  the  succes- 
sive defeats  of  her  armies  at  Jena,  Auerstadt,  and  elsewhere,  and  the 
loss,  by  the  treaty  of  Tilsit  in  1807,  of  half  of  her  territory,  Prussia 
realized  from  the  first  decade  of  the  Napoleonic  period  little  save 
humiliation  and  disaster.     Through  the  years  1807-1815,  however, 
her  lot  was  wonderfully  improved.    Upon  the  failure  of  the  Russian 

most  elaborate  treatment  of  the  subject  is  to  be  found  in  an  excellent  series  of  studies 
edited  by  H.  von  Marquardsen  and  M.  von  Seydel  under  the  title  Handbuch  des 
Oeffentlichen  Rechts  der  Gegenwart  in  Monographien  (Freiburg  and  Tubingen, 
1883-1909).  A  new  series  of  monographs,  comprising  substantially  a  revision  of 
this  collection,  is  at  present  in  course  of  publication  by  J.  C.  B.  Mohr  at  Tubingen. 
The  texts  of  the  various  constitutions  are  printed  in  F.  Stoerk,  Handbuch  der 
deutschen  Verfassungen  (Leipzig,  1884). 
1  See  pp.  200-201,  207. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA  247 

expedition  of  Napoleon  in  1812,  Frederick  William  shook  off  his  appre- 
hensions and  allied  himself  openly  with  the  sovereigns  of  Russia  and 
Austria.  The  people  rose  en  masse,  and  in  the  titanic  struggle  which 
ensued  Prussia  played  a  part  scarcely  second  in  importance  to  that 
of  any  other  power.  At  the  end  she  was  rewarded,  through  the  agency 
of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  by  being  assigned  the  northern  portion  of 
Saxony,  Swedish  Pomerania,  her  old  possessions  west  of  the  Elbe,  the 
duchies  of  Berg  and  Julich,  and  a  number  of  other  districts  in  West- 
phalia and  on  the  Rhine.  Her  area  in  1815  was  108,000  square  miles, 
as  compared  with  122,000  at  the  beginning  of  1806;  but  her  loss  of 
territory  was  more  than  compensated  by  the  substitution  that  had 
been  made  of  German  lands  for  Slavic.1  The  homogeneity  of  her 
population  was  thereby  increased,  her  essentially  Germanic  char- 
acter emphasized,  and  her  capacity  for  German  leadership  en- 
hanced. 

It  was  not  merely  in  respect  to  territory  and  population  that  the 
Prussia  of  1815  was  different  from  the  Prussia  of  a  decade  earlier. 
Consequent  upon  the  humiliating  disasters  of  1806  there  set  in  a 
moral  regeneration  by  which  there  was  wrought  one  of  the  speediest 
and  one  of  the  most  thoroughgoing  national  transformations  recorded 
in  history.  In  1807  Frederick  William's  statesmanlike  minister  Stein 
accomplished  the  abolition  of  serfdom  and  of  all  legal  distinctions 
which  separated  the  various  classes  of  society.2  In  1808  he  reformed 
the  municipalities  and  gave  them  important  powers  of  self-govern- 
ment. By  a  series  of  sweeping  measures  he  reconstructed  the  ministe- 
rial departments,  the  governments  of  the  provinces,  and  the  local 
administrative  machinery,  with  the  result  of  creating  an  executive 
system  which  has  required  but  little  modification  to  the  present  day. 
In  numerous  directions,  especially  in  relation  to  economic  conditions, 
the  work  of  Stein  was  continued  by  that  of  the  succeeding  minister, 
Prince  Hardenberg.  By  Scharnhorst  and  Gneisenau  the  military 
regime  was  overhauled  and  a  body  of  spiritless  soldiery  kept  in  order 
by  fear  was  converted  into  "a  union  of  all  the  moral  and  physical 
energies  of  the  nation."  By  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  the  modern 
Prussian  school  system  was  created;  while  by  Fichte,  Arndt,  and  a 
galaxy  of  other  writers  there  was  imparted  a  stimulus  by  which  the 

1  L.  A.  Himly,  Histoire  de  la  formation  territoriale  des  Stats  de  1'Europe  centrale, 
2  vols.  (Paris,  1876),  I.,  93-110. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed  that  while  Stein  was  officially  the  author  of  this  reform,  the 
substance  of  the  changes  introduced  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  king  and  his 
advisers  before  Stein's  accession  to  office  (October  4,  1807).    The  Edict  of  Emanci- 
pation was  promulgated  October  9,  1807.    It  made  the  abolition  of  serfdom  final 
and  absolute  on  and  after  October  8,  1810. 


248  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

patriotism  and  aspiration  of  the  Prussian  people  were  raised  to  an 
unprecedented  pitch.1 

1 264.  i  Obstacles  to  the  Establishment  of  a  Constitution. — Such  an 
epoch  of  regeneration  could  not  fail  to  be  a  favorable  period  for  the 
growth  of  liberal  principles  of  government.  In  June,  1814,  and  again 
in  May,  1815,  King  Frederick  William  promised,  through  the  medium 
of  a  cabinet  order,  to  give  consideration  to  the  question  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  constitution  in  which  provision  should  be  made  not 
merely  for  the  estates  of  the  provinces  but  also  for  a  national  diet. 
After  the  Congress  of  Vienna  the  task  of  framing  such  a  constitution 
was  actually  taken  in  hand.  But  the  time  was  not  ripe.  Liberalism 
had  gained  headway  as  yet  among  only  the  professional  classes,  while 
the  highly  influential  body  of  ultra-conservative  landholders  were 
unalterably  opposed.  Between  the  eastern  provinces,  still  essentially 
feudal  in  spirit,  and  the  western  ones,  visibly  affected  by  French 
revolutionary  ideas,  there  was,  furthermore,  meager  community  of 
interest.  So  keen  was  the  particularistic  spirit  that  not  infrequently 
the  various  provinces  of  the  kingdom  were  referred  to  in  contemporary 
documents  as  "nations."  Among  these  provinces  some  retained  the 
system  of  estates  which  had  prevailed  throughout  Germany  since  the 
Middle  Ages,  but  in  some  of  those  which  had  fallen  under  the  control 
of  Napoleon  the  estates  had  been  abolished,  and  in  others  they  were 
in  abeyance.  In  a  few  they  had  never  existed.  Votes  were  taken  in 
the  assemblages  of  the  estates  by  orders,  not  by  individuals,  and  the 
function  of  the  bodies  rarely  extended  beyond  the  approving  of  proj- 
ects of  taxation.  Within  the  provinces  there  existed  no  sub-structure 
of  popular  institutions  capable  of  being  made  the  basis  of  a  national 
parliamentary  system. 

Notwithstanding  these  deterring  circumstances,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  some  sort  of  constitution  might  have  been  established  but  for  the 
excesses  of  the  more  zealous  Liberals,  culminating  in  the  murder  of  the 
dramatist  Kotzebue  in  1819,  whereby  the  king  was  thrown  into  an 
attitude,  first  of  apprehension,  and  finally  of  uncompromising  reac- 
tion. By  assuming  joint  responsibility  for  the  Carlsbad  Decrees  of 
October  17,  1819,  he  surrendered  completely  to  the  regime  of  "sta- 
bility" which  all  the  while  had  been  urged  upon  him  by  Metternich. 
June  n,  1821,  he  summoned  a  commission  to  organize  a  system  of 
provincial  estates;  2  but  at  the  same  time  the  project  of  a  national 

1  E.  Meier,  Reform  der  Verwaltungsorganisation  unter  Stein  und  Hardenberg 
(Leipzig,  1881);  J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein,  3  vols.  (Boston,  1879), 
Pt.  III.,  Chaps.  3-4,  Pt.  V.,  Chaps.  1-3. 

2  The  system  was  created  by  royal  patent  June  5,  1823. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA  249 

constitution  and  a  national  diet  was  definitely  abandoned.  Under 
repression  Prussian  liberalism  languished,  and  throughout  the  re- 
mainder of  the  reign,  i.  e.,  to  1840,  the  issue  of  constitutionalism  was 
not  frequently  raised.  In  Prussia,  as  in  Austria,  the  widespread  rev- 
olutionary demonstrations  of  1830  elicited  little  response. 

266.  The  Diet  of  1847. — Upon  the  accession  of  Frederick  William 
I  vC^so^n  of  Frederick  William  III.,  hi  1840,  the  hopes  of  the  Liberals 
were  revived.  The  new  sovereign  was  believed  to  be  a  man  of  ad- 
vanced ideas.  To  a  degree  he  was  such,  as  was  manifested  by  his 
speedy  reversal  of  his  father's  narrow  ecclesiastical  policy,  and  by 
other  enlightened  acts.  But  time  demonstrated  that  his  liberalism 
was  not  without  certain  very  definite  limits.  February  13,  1847,  he 
went  so  far  as  to  summon  a  Vereinigter  Landtag,  or  "united  diet," 
of  Prussia,  comprising  all  members  of  the  existing  eight  provincial 
assemblies,  and  organized  in  two  chambers — a  house  of  lords  and  a 
house  containing  the  three  estates  of  the  knights,  burghers,  and  peas- 
ants. But  the  issue  was  unhappy.  As  Metternich  had  predicted, 
the  meeting  of  the  Diet  but  afforded  opportunity  for  a  forceful  re- 
assertion  of  constitutional  aspirations,  and  the  assemblage  refused 
to  sanction  loans  upon  which  the  sovereign  was  bent  until  its  repre- 
sentative character  should  have  been  more  completely  recognized. 
The  king,  on  his  part,  declared  he  would  never  allow  "  to  come  between 
Almighty  God  in  heaven  and  this  land  a  blotted  parchment,  to  rule 
us  with  paragraphs,  and  to  replace  the  ancient,  sacred  bond  of  loy- 
alty." The  deadlock  was  absolute,  and,  June  26,  the  Diet  was  dis- 
solved. 

266.  The  Revolution  of  1848. — The  dawn  of  constitutionalism 
was,  however,  near.  The  fundamental  law  under  which  Prussia 
still  is  governed  was  a  product — one  of  the  few  which  endured — of 
the  widespread  revolutionary  movement  of  1848.  Upon  the  arrival 
in  Berlin  of  the  news  of  the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe  (February  24) 
at  Paris  and  of  the  fall  of  Metternich  (May  13)  at  Vienna,  the  Prus- 
sian Liberals  renewed  with  vigor  their  clamor  for  the  establishment 
in  Prussia  of  a  government  of  a  constitutional  type.  The  demand 
was  closely  related  to,  yet  was  essentially  distinct  from,  the  con- 
temporary project  for  the  inauguration  of  a  new  constitutional  Ger- 
man Empire.  As  was  proved  by  the  vagaries  of  the  Frankfort  Parlia- 
ment (May,  1848,  to  June,  1849),  conditions  were  not  yet  ripe  for 
the  creation  of  a  closely-knit  empire; 1  and  one  of  the  reasons  why 
this  was  true  was  that  a  necessary  step  toward  that  culmination 
was  only  now  about  to  be  taken,  i.  e.,  the  introduction  of  constitu- 

1  See  p.  198. 


250  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

tional  government  in  the  important  kingdom  of  Prussia.  Apprehen- 
sive lest  the  scenes  of  violence  reported  from  Paris  should  be  re-enacted 
in  his  own  capital,  Frederick  William  acquiesced  in  the  demands 
of  his  subjects  in  so  far  as  to  issue  letters  patent,  May  13,  1848,  con- 
voking a  national  assembly  1  for  the  consideration  of  a  proposed 
constitution.  Every  male  citizen  over  twenty-five  years  of  age  was 
given  the  right  to  participate  in  the  choice  of  electors,  by  whom  in 
turn  were  chosen  the  members  of  this  assembly.  May  22,  1848,  the 
assembly  met  in  Berlin  and  entered  upon  consideration  of  the  sketch 
of  a  fundamental  law  which  the  king  laid  before  it.  The  meeting  was 
attended  by  disorders  in  the  city,  and  the  more  radical  deputies 
further  inflamed  public  feeling  by  persisting  in  the  discussion  of  the 
abolition  of  the  nobility,  and  of  a  variety  of  other  more  or  less  im- 
practicable and  revolutionary  projects.  The  king  took  offense  be- 
cause the  assembly  presumed  to  exercise  constituent  functions  in- 
dependently and,  after  compelling  a  removal  of  the  sittings  to  the 
neighboring  city  of  Brandenburg,  he  in  disgust  dissolved  the  body, 
December  5,  and  promulgated  of  his  own  right  the  constitutional 
charter  which  he  had  drawn. 

267.  Formation  of  the  Constitution. — At  an  earlier  date  it  had 
been  promised  that  the  constitution  to  be  established  should  be 
"agreed  upon  with  an  assembly  of  the  nation's  representatives  freely 
chosen  and  invested  with  full  powers;"  but  it  had  been  suggested  to 
the  king  that  the  way  out  of  the  existing  difficulty  lay  in  issuing  a 
constitutional  instrument  independently  and  subsequently  allowing 
the  Landtag  first  elected  under  it  to  submit  it  to  a  legislative  revi- 
sion, and  this  was  the  course  of  procedure  which  was  adopted.2 
Elections  were  held  and,  February  26,  1849,  the  chambers  were  as- 
sembled. Having  recognized  formally  the  instrument  of  December  5, 
1848,  as  the  law  of  the  land,  the  two  bodies  addressed  themselves 
forthwith  to  the  task  of  revising  it.  The  result  was  disagreement 
and,  in  the  end,  the  dissolution  of  the  lower  house.  The  constitution 
of  1848  had  been  accompanied  by  an  electoral  law  establishing  vot- 
ing by  secret  ballot  and  conferring  upon  all  male  citizens  equal  suf- 
frage. Upon  the  dissolution  of  1849  there  was  promulgated  by  the 
king  a  thoroughgoing  modification  of  this  democratic  measure,  whereby 
voting  by  ballot  was  abolished  and  parliamentary  electors  were 
divided  into  three  classes  whose  voting  power  was  determined  by  prop- 

1  Known  technically  as  Versammlung  zur  Vereinbarung  der  preussischen  Ver- 
fassung. 

2  The  confusion  of  constitutional  and  ordinary  statutory  law  inherent  in  this 
arrangement  has  influenced  profoundly  the  thought  of  German  jurists. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA  251 

erty  qualifications  or  by  official  and  professional  status.  In  other 
words,  there  was  introduced  that  peculiar  three-class  system  which 
was  already  not  unknown  in  the  Prussian  municipalities,  and  which,  in 
both  national  and  city  elections,  persists  throughout  the  kingdom 
to  the  present  day.  In  the  elections  which  were  held  in  the  summer 
of  1849  in  accordance  with  this  system  the  democrats  refused  to 
participate.  The  upshot  was  that  the  new  chambers,  convened 
August  7,  1849,  proved  tractable  enough,  and  by  them  the  text  of 
the  constitution,  after  being  discussed  and  revised  article  by  article, 
was  at  last  accorded  formal  approval.  On  the  last  day  of  January, 
1850,  the  instrument  was  duly  promulgated  at  Charlottenburg.1 
By  Austria,  Russia,  and  other  reactionary  powers  persistent  effort 
was  made  during  the  ensuing  decade  to  influence  the  king  to  rescind 
the  concession  which  he  had  made.  He  refused,  however,  to  do  so, 
and,  with  certain  modifications,  the  constitution  of  1850  remains 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  Prussian  kingdom  to-day.2 

268.  Nature  of  the  Constitution. — The  constitution  of  Prussia 
is  modelled  upon  that  of  Belgium.  Provisions  relating  to  the  powers 
of  the  crown,  the  competence  of  the  chambers,  and  the  functions 
of  the  ministers  are  reproduced  almost  literally  from  the  older  instru- 
ment. None  the  less,  the  two  rest  upon  widely  differing  bases.  The 
Belgian  fundamental  law  begins  with  the  assertion  that  "all  powers 
emanate  from  the  nation. "  That  of  Prussia  voices  no  such  sentiment, 
and  the  governmental  system  for  which  it  provides  has  as  its  corner- 
stone the  thoroughgoing  supremacy  of  the  crown.3  The  Liberals  of 
the  mid-century  period  were  by  no  means  satisfied  with  it;  and,  sixty 
years  after,  it  stands  out  among  the  great  constitutional  documents 
of  the  European  world  so  conspicuous  by  reason  of  its  disregard  of 

1  On  the  establishment  of  constitutionalism  in  Prussia  see  (in  addition  to  works 
mentioned  on  p.  201)  P.  Matter,  La  Prusse  et  la  revolution  de  1848,  in  Revue 
Historique,  Sept.-Oct.,  1002;  P.  Devinat,  Le  mouvement  constitutionnel  en  Prusse 
de  1840  a  1847,  ibid.,  Sept.-Oct.  and  Nov.-Dec.,  1911;  Klaczko,  L'agitation  alle- 
mande  et  la  Prusse,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Dec.,  1862,  and  Jan.,  1863;  C. 
Bornhak,  Preussische  Staats-  und  Rechtsgeschichte  (Berlin,  1003);  H.  von  Peters- 
dorff,  Konig  Friedrich  Wilhelm  IV.  (Stuttgart,  1000);  and  H.  G.  Prutz,  Preussische 
Geschichte,  4  vols.  to  1888  (Stuttgart,  1900-1902).    For  full  bibliography  see  Cam- 
bridge Modern  History,  XI.,  893-898. 

2  As  is  true  in  governmental  systems  generally,  by  no  means  all  of  the  essential 
features  of  the  working  constitution  are  to  be  found  in  the  formal  documents, 
much  less  in  the  written  constitution  alone.    In  Prussia  ordinances,  legislative  acts, 
and  administrative  procedure,  dating  from  both  before  and  after  1850,  have  to  be 
taken  into  account  continually  if  one  would  understand  the  constitutional  order  in 
its  entirety. 

*  Dupriez,  L,es  Ministres,  I.,  350. 


252  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

fundamental  democratic  principle  as  to  justify  completely  the  charges 
of  anachronism  which  reformers  in  Prussia  and  elsewhere  are  in 
these  days  bringing  against  it.  It  provides  for  the  responsibility  of 
ministers,  without  stipulating  a  means  whereby  that  responsibility 
may  be  enforced.  There  is  maintained  under  it  one  of  the  most  an- 
tiquated and  undemocratic  electoral  systems  in  Europe.  And,  as 
is  pointed  out  by  Lowell,  even  where,  on  paper,  it  appears  to  be  liberal, 
it  is  sometimes  much  less  so  than  its  text  would  lead  one  to  suppose. 
It  contains,  for  example,  a  bill  of  rights,  which  alone  comprises  no 
fewer  than  forty  of  the  one  hundred  eleven  permanent  articles  of  the 
instrument.1  In  it  are  guaranteed  the  personal  liberty  of  the  subject, 
the  security  of  property,  the  inviolability  of  personal  correspondence, 
immunity  from  domiciliary  visitation,  freedom  of  the  press,  tolera- 
tion of  religious  sects,  liberty  of  migration,  and  the  right  of  association 
and  public  meeting.  But  there  is  an  almost  total  lack  of  machinery 
by  which  effect  can  be  given  to  some  of  the  most  important  provi- 
sions relating  to  these  subjects.  Some  guarantees  of  what  would  seem 
the  most  fundamental  rights,  as  those  of  public  assemblage  and  of 
liberty  of  teaching,  are  reduced  in  practice  to  empty  phrases.2 

The  process  of  constitutional  amendment  in  Prussia  is  easy.  With 
the  approval  of  the  king,  an  amendment  may  at  any  time  be  adopted 
by  a  simple  majority  of  the  two  legislative  chambers,  with  the  special 
requirement  only  that  an  amendment,  unlike  a  statute,  must  be 
voted  upon  twice,  with  an  interval  of  three  weeks  between  the  two 
votes.  During  the  first  ten  years  of  its  existence  the  constitution 
was  amended  no  fewer  than  ten  times.  Of  later  amendments  there 
have  been  six,  but  none  more  recent  than  that  of  May  27,  1888.  The 
Prussian  system  of  amendment  by  simple  legislative  process  was 
incorporated,  in  1867,  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  North  German 
Confederation  (except  that  in  the  Bundesrath  a  two-thirds  vote 
was  required);  and  in  1871  it  was  perpetuated  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Empire.3 

1  Arts.  3-42.    Robinson,  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  27-34. 

2  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  L,  286. 

3  There  is  an  annotated  English  version  of  the  Prussian  constitution,  edited  by 
J.  H.  Robinson,  in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  Supplement,  Sept.,  1894.    The  original  text  will  be  found  in  F.  Stoerk, 
Handbuch  der  deutschen  Verfassungen  (Leipzig,  1884),  44-63;  also,  with  elab- 
orate notes,  in  A.  Arndt,  Die  Verfassungs-Urkunde  ftir  den  pruessischen  Staat 
nebst  Erganzungs-  und  Ausfuhrungs-Gesetzen,  mit  Einleitung,  Kommentar  und 
Sachregister  (Berlin,  1889).    The  principal  treatises  on  the  Prussian  constitutional 
system  are  H.  Schulze,  Das  preussisches  Staatsrecht,  auf  Grundlage  des  deutschen 
Staatsrechtes  (Leipzig,  1872-1874);  ibid.,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Preussen, 
in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch  (Freiburg,  1884);  L.  von  Ronne,  Das  Staatsrecht 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA  253 


III.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

269.  Status  of  the  Crown.— At  the  head  of  the  state  stands  the  king, 
in  whom  is  vested  the  executive,  and  a  considerable  share  in  the  legis- 
lative, power.    The  crown  is  hereditary  in  the  male  line  of  the  house 
of  Hohenzollern,  following  the  principle  of  primogeniture.    An  heir 
to  the  throne  is  regarded  as  attaining  his  majority  on  the  completion 
of  his  eighteenth  year.    It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  German 
Emperor,  as  such,  has  no  civil  list.    He  has  no  need  of  one,  for  the 
reason  that  in  the  capacity  of  king  of  Prussia  he  is  entitled  to  one  of 
the  largest  civil  lists  known  to  European  governments.     Since  the 
increase  provided  for  by  law  of  February  20,  1889,  the  "Krondota- 
tions  Rente, "  as  it  appears  in  the  annual  Prussian  budget,  aggregates 
15,719,296  marks;  besides  which  the  king  enjoys  the  revenues  from  a 
vast  amount  of  private  property,  comprising  castles,  forests,  and  estates 
in  various  parts  of  the  realm.    There  are  also  certain  special  funds 
the  income  from  which  is  available  for  the  needs  of  the  royal  family. 

270.  Powers. — The  powers  of  the  crown  are  very  comprehensive.1 
It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say  that  they  exceed  those  exercised  by 
any  other  European  sovereign.    The  king  is  head  of  the  army  and 
of  the  church,  and  in  him  are  vested,  directly  or  indirectly,  all  func- 
tions of  an  executive  and  administrative  character.    All  appointments 
to  offices  of  state  are  made  by  him  immediately  or  under  his  authority. 
The  upper  legislative  chamber  is  recruited  almost  exclusively  by 
royal  nomination.    And  all  measures,  before  they  become  law,  re- 
quire the  king's  assent;  though,  by  reason  of  the  sovereign's  absolute 
control  of  the  upper  chamber,  no  measure  of  which  he  disapproves 
can  ever  be  enacted  by  that  body,  so  that  there  is  never  an  occasion 
for  the  exercise  of  the  formal  veto.    To  employ  the  language  of  a 
celebrated  German  jurist,  the  king  possesses  "the  whole  and  undi- 
vided power  of  the  state  in  all  its  plenitude.    It  would,  therefore,  be 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  monarchical  constitutional  law  of 
Germany  to  enumerate  all  individual  powers  of  the  king.  .  .  .    His 
sovereign  right  embraces,  on  the  contrary,  all  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment.   Everything  which  is  decided  or  carried  out  in  the  state  takes 
place  in  the  name  of  the  king.    He  is  the  personified  power  of  the 

der  preussischen  Monarchic  (Leipzig,  1881-1884);  and  H.  de  Grais,  Handbuch 
der  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  und  dem  deutschen  Reiche  (nth  ed., 
Berlin,  1896).  A  good  brief  account  is  that  in  A.  Lebon,  Etudes  sur  1'Allemagne 
politique,  Chap.  4. 

1  They  are  enumerated  in  articles  45-52  of  the  constitution.    Robinson,  Consti- 
tution of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  36-37. 


254  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

state."1  Except  in  so  far  as  the  competence  of  the  sovereign  is  ex- 
pressly limited  or  regulated  by  the  constitution,  it  is  to  be  regarded 
as  absolute. 

271.  The  Ministry:  Composition  and  Status. — The  organization  of 
the  executive — the  creation  of  ministerial  portfolios,  the  appointment 
of  ministers,  and  the  delimitation  of  departmental  functions — rests 
absolutely  with  the  king,  save,  of  course,  for  the  necessity  of  procuring 
from  the  Landtag  the  requisite  appropriations.  Beginning  in  the  days 
of  Stein  with  five,  the  number  of  ministries  was  gradually  increased 
until  since  1878  there  have  been  nine,  as  follows:  Foreign  Affairs;  2 
the  Interior;  Ecclesiastical,  Educational,  and  Sanitary  Affairs;  Com- 
merce and  Industry;  Finance;  War;  Justice;  Public  Works;  and  Agri- 
culture, Public  Domains,  and  Forests.  Each  ministry  rests  upon  an 
essentially  independent  basis  and  there  has  been  little  attempt  to 
reduce  the  group  to  the  uniformity  or  symmetry  of  organization  that 
characterizes  the  ministries  of  France,  Italy,  and  other  continental 
monarchies.  Departmental  heads,  as  well  as  subordinates,  are  ap- 
pointed with  reference  solely  to  their  administrative  efficiency,  not, 
as  in  parliamentary  governments,  in  consideration  of  their  politics 
or  of  their  status  in  the  existing  political  situation.  They  need  not  be, 
and  usually  are  not,  members  of  either  of  the  legislative  chambers. 

For  it  is  essential  to  observe  that  in  Prussia  ministers  are  responsible 
only  to  the  sovereign,  which  means  that  the  parliamentary  system, 
in  the  proper  sense,  does  not  exist.  The  constitution,  it  is  true,  pre- 
scribes that  every  act  of  the  king  shall  be  countersigned  by  a  minister, 
who  thereby  assumes  responsibility  for  it.3  But  there  is  no  machinery 
whereby  this  nominal  responsibility  can  be  made,  in  practice,  to  mean 
anything.  Ministers  do  not  retire  by  reason  of  an  adverse  vote  in  the 
Landtag;  and,  although  upon  vote  of  either  legislative  chamber,  they 
may  be  prosecuted  for  treason,  bribery,  or  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion, no  penalties  are  prescribed  in  the  event  of  conviction,  so  that  the 
provision  is  of  no  practical  effect.4  Every  minister  possesses  the  right 

1  Schulze,  Preussisches  Staatsrecht,  I.,  158. 

2  The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  is  at  the  same  time  the  Minister-President  of 
Prussia  and  the  Chancellor  of  the  Empire.    On  the  functions  of  the  various  minis- 
tries see  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  I.,  448-462. 

3  Art.  44. 

4  Art.  61.    Robinson,  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  40.    In  the  words 
of  a  German  jurist,  "the  anomaly  continues  to  exist  in  Prussia  of  ministerial  re- 
sponsibility solemnly  enunciated  in  the  constitution,  the  character  of  the  respon- 
sibility, the  accuser  and  the  court  specified,  and  at  the  same  time  a  complete  lack 
of  any  legal  means  by  which  the  representatives  of  the  people  can  protect  even  the 
constitution  itself  against  the  most  flagrant  violations  and  the  most  dangerous 
attacks."    Schulze,  Preussisches  Staatsrecht,  II.,  694. 


THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  PRUSSIA  255 

to  appear  on  the  floor  of  either  chamber,  and  to  be  heard  at  any  time 
when  no  member  of  the  house  is  actually  speaking.  In  the  exercise 
of  this  privilege  the  minister  is  the  immediate  spokesman  of  the 
crown,  a  fact  which  is  apt  to  be  apparent  from  the  tenor  of  his  utter- 
ances. 

272.  The  Ministry:  Organization  and  Workings. — The  Prussian 
ministry  exhibits  little  solidarity.  There  is  a  "president  of  the  council 
of  ministers,"  who  is  invariably  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  and 
at  the  same  time  the  Chancellor  of  the  Empire,  but  his  functions  are 
by  no  means  those  of  the  corresponding  dignitary  in  France  and  Italy. 
Over  his  colleagues  he  possesses,  as  president,  no  substantial  authority 
whatsoever.1  In  the  lack  of  responsibility  to  the  Landtag,  there  is  no 
occasion  for  an  attempt  to  hold  the  ministry  solidly  together  in  the 
support  of  a  single,  consistent  programme.  The  ministers  are  severally 
controlled  by,  and  responsible  to,  the  crown,  and  the  views  or  policies 
of  one  need  not  at  all  be  those  of  another.  At  the  same  time,  of  course, 
in  the  interest  of  efficiency  it  is  desirable  that  there  shall  be  a  certain 
amount  of  unity  and  of  concerted  action.  To  attain  this  there  was 
established  by  Count  Hardenberg  a  Staats-Ministerium,  or  Ministry 
of  State,  which  occupies  in  the  Prussian  executive  system  a  position 
somewhat  similar  to  that  occupied  in  the  French  by  the  Council  of 
Ministers.2  The  Ministry  of  State  is  composed  of  the  nine  ministerial 
heads,  together  with  the  Imperial  secretaries  of  state  for  the  Interior, 
Foreign  Affairs,  and  the  Navy.  It  holds  meetings  at  least  as  fre- 
quently as  once  a  week  for  the  discussion  of  matters  of  common  ad- 
ministrative interest,  the  drafting  of  laws  or  of  constitutional  amend- 
ments, the  supervision  of  local  administration,  and,  in  emergencies,  the 
promulgation  of  ordinances  which  have  the  force  of  law  until  the 
ensuing  session  of  the  Landtag.  There  are  certain  acts,  as  the  pro- 
claiming of  a  state  of  siege,  which  may  be  performed  only  with  the 
sanction  of  this  body.  The  fact  remains,  none  the  less,  that,  normally, 
the  work  of  the  several  departments  is  carried  on  independently  and 
that  the  ministry  exhibits  less  cohesion  than  any  other  in  a  state  of 
Prussia's  size  and  importance.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is 
likewise  a  Staatsrath,  or  Council  of  State  (dating  originally  from  1604 

1  The  office  of  Chancellor  was  discontinued  with  the  death  of  Hardenberg  and 
that  of  Minister-President  substituted.      The  Chancellor  possessed  substantial 
authority  over  his  colleagues.     Since  1871,  the  Minister-President  has  been  a 
Chancellor,  but  of  the  Empire,  not  of  Prussia. 

2  The  Staats-Ministerium  was  called  into  being,  to  replace  the  old  Council  of 
State,  by  an  ordinance  of  October  27,  1810.    Its  functions  were  further  elaborated 
in  cabinet  orders  of  June  3,  1814,  and  November  3,  1817.    The  constitution  of  1850 
preserved  it  and  assigned  it  some  new  duties. 


256  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  revived  in  1817),  composed  of  princes,  high  officials  of  state, 
ministers,  judges,  and  other  persons  of  influence  designated  by  the 
crown.  It  may  be  consulted  on  legislative  proposals,  disputes  as  to 
the  spheres  of  the  various  ministries,  and  other  important  matters. 
In  barrenness  of  function,  however,  as  in  structure,  it  bears  a  close 
resemblance  to-day  to  the  British  Privy  Council.1 

273.  Subsidiary  Executive  Bodies. — Two  other  executive  organs 
possess  considerable  importance.  These  are  the  Oberrechnungs- 
kammer,  or  Supreme  Chamber  of  Accounts,  and  the  Volkswirth- 
schaftsrath,  or  Economic  Council.  The  Oberrechnungskammer  has 
existed  continuously  since  1714.  Its  function  is  the  oversight  and 
revision  of  the  finances  of  the  departments,  the  administration  of  the 
state  debt,  and  the  acquisition  and  disposal  of  state  property.  Its 
president  is  appointed  by  the  crown,  on  nomination  of  the  Staats- 
Ministerium.  Its  remaining  members  are  designated  by  the  crown 
on  nomination  of  its  own  president,  countersigned  by  the  president 
of  the  Staats-Ministerium.  All  enjoy  the  tenure  and  the  immunities 
of  judges,  and  the  body  collectively  is  responsible,  not  to  the  Ministry 
of  State,  but  to  the  crown  immediately.  In  status  and  function  it 
resembles  somewhat  closely  the  French  Cour  des  Comptes.  The  same 
group  of  men,  with  additional  members  appointed  by  the  Bundesrath, 
serves  as  the  Chamber  of  Accounts  of  the  Empire.  The  Volkswirth- 
schaftsrath  consists  of  seventy-five  members  named  by  the  king  for  a 
term  of  five  years.  Its  business  is  to  give  preliminary  consideration 
to  measures  vitally  affecting  large  economic  interests,  to  determine 
what  should  be  Prussia's  position  in  the  Bundesrath  upon  these  meas- 
ures, and  to  recommend  to  the  crown  definite  courses  of  action  regard- 
ing them.  Its  function  is  purely  consultative. 

1  On  the  organization  and  functions  of  the  Prussian  ministry  see  Dupriez,  Les 
Ministres,  I.,  345-462;  von  Seydel,  Preussisches  Staatsrecht,  91-104;  von  Ronne, 
Das  Staatsrecht  der  preussischen  Monarchic,  4th  ed.,  III.;  Schulze,  Das  preussische 
Staatsrecht,  II. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

I.  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  LANDTAG 

274.  The  House  of  Lords :  Law  of  1853. — Legislative  authority  in 
the  kingdom  of  Prussia  is  shared  by  the  king  with  a  national  assembly, 
the  Landtag,  composed  of  two  chambers,  of  which  the  upper  is  known 
as  the  Herrenhaus,  or  House  of  Lords,  and  the  lower  as  the  Abgeordnet- 
enhaus,  or  House  of  Representatives.  Under  the  original  provisions 
of  the  constitution,  the  House  of  Lords  was  composed  of  (i)  adult 
princes  of  the  royal  family;  (2)  heads  of  Prussian  houses  deriving  di- 
rectly from  the  earlier  Empire;  (3)  heads  of  families  designated  by 
royal  ordinance,  with  regard  to  rights  of  primogeniture  and  lineal 
descent;  (4)  90  members  chosen  by  the  principal  taxpayers  of  the 
kingdom;  and  (5)  30  members  elected  by  the  municipal  councils  of  the 
larger  towns.  By  law  of  May  7,  1853,  this  arrangement  was  set  aside 
and  in  its  stead  it  was  enacted  that  the  chamber  should  be  made  up 
entirely  of  persons  appointed  by  the  crown  in  heredity  or  for  life;  and, 
on  the  authorization  of  this  measure,  there  was  promulgated,  Octo- 
ber 12,  1854,  a  royal  ordinance  by  which  the  composition  of  the  body 
was  fixed  substantially  as  it  is  to-day.  The  act  of  1853  forbids  that  the 
system  thus  brought  into  operation  be  further  modified,  save  with  the 
assent  of  the  Landtag;  but  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  present 
composition  of  the  Prussian  upper  house  is  determined,  not  by  the 
constitution  of  the  kingdom,  but  by  royal  ordinance  authorized  by 
legislative  enactment. 

276.  The  House  of  Lords  To-day. — The  component  elements 
of  the  House  of  Lords  to-day  are:  (i)  princes  of  the  royal  family  who 
are  of  age;  (2)  scions  of  the  Hohenzollern-Hechingen,  Hohenzollern- 
Sigmaringen,  and  sixteen  other  once  sovereign  families  of  Prussia; 
(3)  heads  of  the  territorial  nobility  created  by  the  king,  and  numbering 
some  fifty  members;  (4)  a  number  of  life  peers,  chosen  by  the  king 
from  among  wealthy  landowners,  great  manufacturers,  and  men  of 
renown;  (5)  eight  titled  noblemen  appointed  by  the  king  on  the  nom- 
ination of  the  resident  landowners  of  the  eight  older  provinces  of  the 
kingdom;  (6)  representatives  of  the  universities,  of  religious  bodies, 
and  of  towns  of  over  50,000  inhabitants,  presented  by  these  various 

257 


258  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

organizations  respectively,  but  appointed  ultimately  by  the  king; 
and  (7)  an  indefinite  number  of  members,  chosen  by  the  king  for  life 
on  any  ground  whatsoever,  and  under  no  restriction  except  that  peers 
must  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty  years. 

The  composition  of  the  chamber  is  thus  extremely  complex.  There 
are  members  ex-officio,  members  by  royal  appointment,  members 
by  hereditary  right.  But  the  appointing  power  of  the  crown  is  so 
comprehensive  that  the  body  partakes  largely  of  the  character  of  a 
royal  creation.  Its  membership  is  recruited  almost  exclusively  from 
the  rigidly  conservative  landowning  aristocracy,  so  that  in  attitude 
and  policy  it  is  apt  to  be  in  no  degree  representative  of  the  mass  of  the 
nation,  at  least  of  the  industrial  classes.  As  a  rule,  though  not  in- 
variably, it  is  ready  to  support  cordially  the  measures  of  the  crown.  In 
any  event,  through  exercise  of  the  unrestricted  power  of  creating  peers, 
the  crown  is  in  a  position  at  all  times  to  control  its  acts.  The  number 
of  members  varies,  but  is  ordinarily  about  300. l 

276.  The  House  of  Representatives. — The  Abgeordnetenhaus,  or 
House  of  Representatives,  consists  of  443  members — 362  for  the  old 
kingdom,  80  added  in  1867  to  represent  the  newly  acquired  provinces, 
and  one  added  in  1876  to  represent  Lauenburg.    Representatives  are 
elected  for  a  five-year  term,  and  every  Prussian  is  eligible  who  has 
completed  his  thirtieth  year,  who  has  paid  taxes  to  the  state  during 
as  much  as  three  years,  and  whose  civil  rights  have  not  been  impaired 
by  judicial  sentence.    Every  Prussian  who  has  attained  his  twenty- 
fifth  year,  and  who  is  qualified  to  vote  in  the  municipal  elections  of 
his  place  of  domicile,  is  entitled  to  participate  in  the  choice  of  a  dep- 
uty.   At  first  glance  the  Prussian  franchise  appears  distinctly  liberal. 
It  is  so,  however,  only  in  the  sense  that  comparatively  few  adult  males 
are  excluded  from  the  exercise  of  it.    In  its  actual  workings  it  is  one 
of  the  most  undemocratic  in  Europe. 

277.  The  Electoral  System. — Representatives  are  chosen  in  electoral 
districts,  each  of  which  returns  from  one  to  three  members — as  a  rule, 
two.    There  has  been  no  general  redistribution  of  seats  since  1860 
(although  some  changes  were  made  in  1906),  so  that  in  many  dis- 
tricts, especially  in  the  urban  centers  whose  growth  has  fallen  largely 
within  the  past  fifty  years,  the  quota  of  representatives  is  grossly 
disproportioned  to  population.     Until  1906  the  entire  city  of  Berlin 
returned  but  nine  members,  and  its  quota  now  is  only  twelve.2   The 

1  Lebon,  fitudes  sur  I'Allemagne  politique,  187-197. 

9  Prior  to  1906  the  Berlin  representatives  were  chosen  in  four  electoral  districts, 
but  in  the  year  mentioned  the  city  was  divided  into  twelve  single-member  con- 
stituencies. 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  259 

enfranchised  inhabitants  of  the  district  do  not,  moreover,  vote  for  a 
representative  directly.  The  essential  characteristics  of  the  Prussian 
electoral  system  are,  first,  that  the  suffrage  is  indirect,  and,  second, 
that  it  is  unequal.  The  precise  method  by  which  a  representative  is 
elected  l  may  be  indicated  as  follows:  (i)  each  circle,  or  district,  is 
divided  into  a  number  of  Urwahlbezirke,  or  sub-districts;  (2)  hi  each 
Urwahlbezirk  one  Wahlman,  or  elector,  is  allotted  to  every  250  inhab- 
itants; (3)  for  the  choosing  of  these  WahlmSnner  the  voters  of  the 
sub-district  are  divided  into  three  classes,  arranged  in  such  a  fashion 
that  the  first  class  will  be  composed  of  the  payers  of  direct  taxes, 
beginning  with  the  largest  contributors,  who  collectively  pay  one- 
third  of  the  tax-quota  of  the  sub-district,  the  second  class  will  include 
the  payers  next  in  importance  who  as  a  group  pay  the  second  third, 
and  the  last  class  will  comprise  the  remainder;  (4)  each  of  these  classes 
chooses,  by  absolute  majority,  one- third  of  the  electors  to  which  the 
Urwahlbezirk  is  entitled;  finally  (5)  all  the  electors  thus  chosen  in 
the  various  Urwahlbezirke  of  the  district  come  together  as  an  electoral 
college  and  choose,  by  absolute  majority,  a  representative  to  sit  in  the 
Abgeordnetenhaus  at  Berlin.2 

278.  Origins  and  Operation  of  the  System. — The  principal  features 
of  this  unique  system  were  devised  as  a  compromise  between  a 
thoroughgoing  democracy  based  on  universal  suffrage  and  a  gov- 
ernment exclusively  by  the  landholding  aristocracy.  The  three- 
class  arrangement  originated  in  the  Rhine  Province  where,  by  the  local 
government  code  of  1845,  ft  was  Put  m  operation  in  the  elections  of  the 
municipalities.  In  the  constitution  of  1850  it  was  adopted  for  use  in 
the  national  elections,  and  in  subsequent  years  it  was  extended  to  munic- 
ipal elections  in  virtually  all  parts  of  the  kingdom,  so  that  it  came  to 
be  a  characteristic  and  well-nigh  universal  Prussian  institution.  It 
need  hardly  be  pointed  out  that  the  scheme  throws  the  bulk  of  political 
power,  whether  in  municipality  or  in  nation,  into  the  hands  of  the 
men  of  wealth.  In  not  fewer  than  2,214  Urwahlbezirke  a  third  of  the 
direct  taxes  is  paid  by  a  single  individual,  who  therefore  comprises 
alone  the  first  electoral  class;  and  in  1703  precincts  the  first  class 
consists  of  but  two  persons.  In  most  cases  the  number  of  the  least 
considerable  taxpayers  who  in  the  aggregate  pay  the  last  third  of 
the  tax-quota  is  relatively  large.  Taking  the  kingdom  as  a  whole, 

1  As  stipulated  in  articles  69-75  of  the  constitution.   Robinson,  The  Constitution 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Prussia,  42-44. 

2  In  the  event  that,  between  elections,  a  seat  falls  vacant,  a  new  member  is  chosen 
forthwith  by  this  same  body  of  Wahlmanner  without  a  fresh  appeal  to  the  original 
electorate  of  the  district. 


260  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

it  was  estimated  in  1907  that  approximately  three  per  cent  of  the 
electorate  belonged  to  the  first  class,  about  9.5  per  cent  to  the  second, 
and  the  remaining  87.5  to  the  third.  In  the  individual  precinct,  as 
in  the  nation  at  large,  the  little  group  at  the  top,  however,  possesses 
precisely  as  much  political  weight  as  the  large  group  at  the  bottom, 
because  it  is  entitled  to  choose  an  equal  number  of  Wahlmanner. 
The  result  is  a  segregation  of  classes  which,  whatever  its  merits  at 
certain  points,  is  of  very  questionable  utility  as  a  basis  of  government. 
The  effect  politically  is  to  give  an  enormous  advantage  to  the 
conservative  and  agrarian  interests  and  to  deprive  the  socialists 
and  other  popular  elements  all  but  completely  of  representation. 
At  the  elections  of  1903  the  Social  Democrats  put  forth  effort  for 
the  first  time  in  an  organized  way  to  win  seats  in  the  Landtag.  Under 
the  system  which  has  been  described  a  total  of  324,157  Conservative 
votes  sufficed  to  elect  143  representatives,  but  314,149  Social  Demo- 
cratic votes  did  not  secure  the  return  of  a  single  member.  In  the 
Imperial  elections  of  the  same  year,  conducted  under  a  scheme 
of  equal  suffrage,  the  popular  party  sent  to  the  Reichstag  eighty 
members.  At  the  Prussian  elections  of  1908  a  Social  Democratic 
vote  which  comprised  approximately  twenty-four  per  cent  of  the 
total  popular  vote  yielded  but  seven  members  in  a  total  of  443.  So 
glaringly  undemocratic  is  the  prevailing  system  that  even  that  arch- 
aristocrat,  Bismarck,  was  upon  one  occasion  moved  to  denounce  the 
three-class  arrangement  as  "the  most  miserable  and  absurd  election 
law  that  has  ever  been  formulated  in  any  country. J)1 

II.  THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  ELECTORAL  REFORM 

279.  The  Programme  Formulated. —  Throughout  more  than  a 
generation  there  has  been  in  Prussia  persistent  agitation  in  behalf 
of  electoral  reform.  In  1883,  and  again  in  1886,  the  lower  chamber 
debated,  but  rejected,  a  project  for  the  substitution  of  the  secret 
ballot  for  the  existing  viva  wee  method  of  voting.  In  1883  the  Social 

1  For  a  brief  exposition  of  the  practical  effects  of  the  system,  especially  on  political 
parties,  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  305-308.  The  system  as  it 
operates  in  the  cities  is  described  in  Munro,  The  Government  of  European 
Cities,  128-135,  and  in  R.  C.  Brooks,  The  Three-Class  System  in  Prussian  Cities, 
in  Municipal  Affairs,  II.,  3Q6ff.  Among  special  treatises  may  be  mentioned 
H.  Nezard,  L'fi  volution  du  suffrage  universel  en  Prusse  et  dans  PEmpire  allemand 
(Paris,  1905);  I.  Jastrow,  Das  Dreiklassensystem  (Berlin,  1894);  R.  von  Gneist, 
Die  nationale  Rechtsidee  von  den  Standen  und  das  preussische  Dreiklassensystem 
(Berlin,  1904);  and  G.  Evert,  Die  Dreiklassenwahl  in  den  preussischen  Stadt-und 
Landgemeinden  (Berlin,  1901). 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  261 

Democratic  party  proclaimed  its  purpose  to  abstain  from  voting 
until  the  inequalities  arising  from  "  the  most  wretched  of  all  electoral 
systems"  should  have  been  removed.  Gradually  there  was  worked 
out  a  programme  of  reform  to  which  socialists,  Liberals,  and  pro- 
gressives of  various  schools  gave  adherence,  wholly  or  in  part,  com- 
prising four  principal  demands:  (i)  the  abolition  of  discriminations 
against  the  small  taxpayer;  (2)  the  introduction  of  the  secret  ballot; 
(3)  the  replacing  of  indirect  by  direct  elections;  and  (4)  a  redistri- 
bution of  seats.  And  these  are  to-day  the  objects  chiefly  sought 
by  the  reform  elements. 

280.  The  Efforts  of  1906  and  1908.— In  1906  a  bill  raising  the 
number  of  representatives  from  433  to  443  and  making  provision 
for  a  slight  redistribution  of  seats  was  carried,  but  a  Radical  amend- 
ment providing  for  direct  and  universal  suffrage  and  the  secret  ballot 
was  opposed  with  vigor  by  the  Government  and  failed  of  adoption.    In 
January,  1908,  there  were  notable  socialist  demonstrations  throughout 
the  country  in  behalf  of  the  establishment  of  equal  manhood  suffrage. 
Prince  von  Biilow,  while  admitting  the  existing  system  to  be  defective, 
opposed  the  introduction  in  Prussia  of  the  electoral  system  of  the 
Empire,  alleging  that  it  would  not  be  compatible  with  the  interests 
of  the  state  and  maintaining  that  every  sound  reform  of  the  franchise 
must  retain  and  secure  the  preponderance  of  the  great  mass  of  the 
middle  class,  and  therefore  must  ami  at  the  establishment  of  an 
equitable  gradation  in  the  weight  of  the  various  classes  of  votes. 
It  was  added  that  the  Government  would  consider  whether  this 
object  might  best  be  attained  by  basing  the  franchise  entirely  upon 
the  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  the  voter,  or  by  taking  into  account 
age,   educational  attainments,  or  other  qualifications.     When  the 
Radicals  introduced  in  the  lower  chamber  a  resolution  declaring  for 
equal  manhood  suffrage  the  Clericals  and  the  Poles  supported  it, 
but  the  Conservatives  and  National  Liberals  of  all  shades  stood  by 
the  Government,  and  the  resolution  was  overwhelmingly  rejected. 
The  elections  of  June,  1908,  at  which,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  seven 
Social  Democratic  members  were  returned,  demonstrated  that  even 
under  existing  electoral  arrangements  dissatisfaction  could  find  some 
expression.    The  National  Liberals  and  the  Free  Conservatives,  who 
had  been  outspoken  in  opposition  to  the  extension  of  the  suffrage,  lost, 
respectively,  twelve  and  four  seats.    When,  however,  the  Radical  reso- 
lution reappeared  it  again  was  thrown  out. 

281.  The  Project  of  1910. — By  popular  demonstrations  in  Berlin  and 
in  other  important  towns  throughout  the  kingdom,  the  Government 
was  brought  to  the  conviction  that  it  was  not  expedient  to  maintain 


262  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

too  long  its  hitherto  inflexible  attitude.  In  a  speech  from  the  throne. 
January  n,  1910,  the  sovereign  announced  the  early  introduction  of  a 
measure  for  electoral  reform,  and  a  month  later  it  became  the  unwelcome 
duty  of  the  new  Chancellor,  von  Bethman-Hollweg,  to  lay  the  Govern- 
ment's project  before  the  chambers.  Instantly  it  was  evident,  not  only 
that  the  proposal  had  been  prepared  entirely  under  bureaucratic  direc- 
tion, but  that  the  real  purpose  of  the  Government  was  to  carry  through 
the  Landtag  an  electoral  bill  designed  to  appease  the  reformers  without 
yielding  the  essential  features  of  the  existing  system.  The  project 
provided,  in  brief:  (i)  that  the  tripartite  system  be  retained,  though 
the  quota  of  taxes  admitting  to  the  first  class  should  be  reduced  to  a 
uniform  level  of  five  thousand  marks  (no  weight  being  given  to  payment 
beyond  that  amount),  and  voters  of  specified  degrees  of  education,  or 
occupying  certain  official  positions,  or  having  served  a  stipulated  number 
of  years  in  the  army  or  navy,  should  be  assigned  to  the  higher  classes, 
with  but  incidental  regard  to  their  tax  contributions:  (2)  that  viva  wee 
voting  be  retained;  (3)  that  the  choice  of  electors  be  by  districts  rather 
than  by  Urwahlbezirke;  and  (4)  that  direct  voting  be  substituted  for 
indirect.  There  was  no  mention  of  redistribution,  and  the  secret  ballot 
was  specifically  withheld.  The  rearrangement  of  classes  did  not  touch 
the  fundamental  difficulty,  and  the  only  demand  of  the  reformers  which 
was  really  met  was  that  for  direct  elections.  In  his  speech  in  defense 
of  the  measure  the  Chancellor  frankly  admitted  that  the  Government 
was  irrevocably  opposed  to  a  suffrage  system  based  on  democratic 
principles. 

The  scheme  was  ridiculed  by  the  liberal  elements.  In  protest  against 
the  nonchalance  with  which  the  door  had  been  shut  in  their  faces  the 
working  classes  in  Berlin  and  elsewhere  entered  upon  a  fresh  series  of 
demonstrations  by  reason  of  which  the  Government  was  embarrassed 
through  several  weeks.  In  the  Landtag  the  Conservative  and  Free 
Conservative  parties,  comprising  the  Government  majority,  stood 
solidly  for  the  bill,  in  the  conviction  that  if  there  must  be  change  at  all 
those  changes  which  the  bill  proposed  would  be  less  objectionable  than 
those  which  were  being  urged  by  the  radicals.  The  Centre  wavered, 
while  the  National  Liberals,  the  Poles,  the  Social  Democrats,  and  the 
Progressive  People's  Party  stood  firmly  in  opposition.  February  13 
the  bill  was  referred  in  the  lower  house  to  a  committee,  by  which  it 
was  reported  so  amended  as  to  provide  for  the  secret  ballot  but  not  for 
direct  elections.  March  16,  by  a  vote  of  283  to  168,  the  measure  in  this 
amended  form,  was  passed  by  the  chamber,  all  parties  except  the 
Conservatives  and  the  Centre  voting  against  it.  April  29  the  bill  was 
passed  in  the  upper  chamber,  by  a  vote  of  140  to  94,  in  the  form  in 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  263 

which  originally  it  had  been  introduced.  All  efforts  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  to  bring  the  lower  house  to  an  acceptance  of  the  original 
measure  proved  fruitless,  and  the  upshot  was  that,  May  27  following,  the 
project  was  withdrawn  from  the  chambers.  The  overhauling  of  the 
antiquated  electoral  system  in  Prussia,  both  national  and  municipal, 
remains  a  live  issue,  but  agreement  upon  a  definite  project  of  reform  is 
apparently  remote.  The  problem  is  enormously  complicated  by  the 
virile  traditions  of  aristocratic,  landed  privilege  which  permeate  the 
inmost  parts  of  the  Prussian  political  system.  In  respect  to  redistri- 
bution, too,  a  fundamental  obstacle  lies  in  the  consideration  that  such 
a  step  on  the  part  of  Prussia  would  almost  of  necessity  involve  a  similar 
one  on  the  part  of  the  Empire.  In  both  instances  the  insuperable 
objection,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Government,  arises  from  the 
vast  acquisition  of  political  power  which  would  accrue  from  such  re- 
form to  the  socialists  and  other  radical  parties.1 

III.  ORGANIZATION  AND  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  LANDTAG 

282.  Sessions  and  Privileges  of  Members. — The  maximum  life  of  a 
Landtag  is  five  years;  but  the  lower  house  may  at  any  time  be  dissolved 
by  the  crown.  A  dissolution  must  be  followed  by  the  election  of  a  new 
chamber  within  sixty  days,  and  the  ensuing  session  is  required  to  begin 
within  three  months.  The  power  of  dissolution  is  not  infrequently 
exercised,  and  there  have  been  instances  of  the  dissolution  of  a  newly 
elected  chamber,  by  reason  of  its  objectionable  political  character, 
before  it  had  been  convened  for  so  much  as  a  single  sitting.  According 
to  law  the  Landtag  must  be  convoked  in  regular  session  every  year, 
during  the  period  between  the  beginning  of  November  and  the  middle 
of  the  following  January.2  It  may  be  called  in  extraordinay  session  at 
any  time.  Without  its  own  consent,  it  may  not  be  adjourned  for  more 
than  thirty  days,  or  more  than  once  during  a  session.  Save  in  the  event 
of  the  necessity  of  making  provision  for  a  regency,  the  chambers  sit 
separately;  but  the  two  must  be  convoked,  opened,  adjourned,  and 
prorogued  simultaneously. 

Each  chamber  passes  upon  the  qualifications  of  its  members;  each 
elects  it  own  presidents,  vice-presidents,  and  secretaries;  and  each 
regulates  its  own  discipline  and  order  of  business.  Sittings  of  both 
chambers  are  public,  save  when,  on  proposal  of  the  president  or  of  ten 

1  P.  Matter,  La  re"forme  61ectorale  en  Prusse,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
Sept.,  1910;  C.  Brocard,  La  re"forme  electorate  en  Prusse  et  les  partis,  in  Revue 
Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Feb.,  1912. 

2  Art.  76. 


264  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

members,  it  is  decided  to  close  the  doors.  Members  are  regarded  as 
representatives  of  the  population  of  the  kingdom  as  a  whole.  They  may 
not  be  bound  by  any  sort  of  instructions;  nor  may  they  be  called  to 
account  legally  for  votes  cast,  or  for  statements  made,  in  the  fulfillment, 
of  their  legislative  functions.  Unless  taken  in  the  act,  or  within  twenty- 
four  hours  thereafter,  no  member  of  either  house  may,  without  the 
consent  of  that  house,  be  arrested  or  submitted  to  examination  for  any 
penal  offense.  Members  of  the  lower  house  receive,  and  must  accept, 
travelling  expenses  and  a  daily  allowance  of  fifteen  marks  during 
sessions. 

At  the  beginning  of  each  sitting  the  House  of  Lords  is  divided  into 
five  Abtheilungen,  or  sections,  and  the  House  of  Representatives  into 
seven.  In  the  lower  house  the  division  is  made  by  lot;  in  the  upper, 
by  the  president.  In  both  instances  it  is  made  once  for  an  entire  session, 
not  monthly  as  in  France,  or  bi-monthly  as  in  Italy.  The  function  of  the 
Abtheilungen  is  to  appoint  committee  members,  and,  in  the  lower  house, 
to  make  preliminary  examination  of  election  returns.  In  each  house 
there  are  eight  standing  committees.  For  the  consideration  of  par- 
ticular measures  special  committees  are  constituted  as  occasion  demands. 

283.  Powers. — The  Landtag  is,  of  course,  primarily  a  legislative 
institution.  But  the  powers  of  independent  deliberation  which  it 
exercises  are  distinctly  inferior  to  those  exercised  by  the  British  House 
of  Commons,  by  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  or  by  any  one  of  a 
half  score  of  other  European  parliamentary  bodies.  This  fact  arises 
from  the  relatively  preponderating  influence  which  is  exerted  by  the 
Government  in  its  proceedings.  In  theory  each  chamber  possesses  the 
right  to  initiate  legislation;  in  practice,  virtually  all  bills  are  introduced 
by  the  Government,  and  the  chambers  content  themselves  with  dis- 
cussion and  the  proposing  of  amendments.  It  not  infrequently  happens 
that,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Electoral  Reform  Bill  of  1910,  the  lower  house 
so  emasculates  a  measure  as  to  compel  the  Government  to  withdraw 
it.  But,  speaking  broadly,  it  may  be  said  that  the  legislative  acts  of 
Prussia  are  projected  and  formulated  by  the  crown  and  the  ministers 
and  merely  ratified  by  the  Landtag.  There  is  still  some  question 
as  to  whether  the  stipulation  that  all  laws  require  the  assent  of  the  two 
houses  covers,  under  every  circumstance,  the  appropriation  of  money. 
In  practice,  appropriations  are  regularly  voted  in  the  chambers,  and  in 
fact  it  is  required  that  the  budget  and  all  fiscal  measures  shall  be  pre- 
sented first  to  the  lower  house  and  shall  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  a 
whole  by  the  upper;  but  during  the  years  immediately  preceding  the 
Austrian  war  of  1866  the  Government  asserted  and  exercised  the  power 
of  collecting  and  expending  the  revenues  of  the  state  on  the  basis  of 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  265 

standing  laws,  thus  virtually  suspending  the  legislative  appropriating 
power,  and  the  question  has  never  been  finally  settled  by  Prussian 
jurists  as  to  whether  such  a  thing  might  not  again  be  done.1 

On  the  side  of  administration  the  powers  of  the  Landtag  are  but 
nominal.  Under  provisions  of  the  constitution  each  chamber  has  a 
right  to  present  memorials  to  the  king;  to  refer  to  the  ministers  docu- 
ments addressed  to  it,  and  to  demand  explanations  respecting  com- 
plaints made  therein;  and  to  appoint  commissions  for  the  investigation 
of  subjects  for  its  own  information.  The  right  of  interpellation  is  ex- 
pressly recognized.  But,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  ministers  are  not 
in  practice  responsible  to  the  legislative  chambers,  and  neither  they  nor 
the  king  himself  can  be  compelled  to  give  heed,  unless  they  so  desire, 
to  legislative  protests,  demands,  or  censure.  Where  a  parliamentary 
system  does  not  exist,  the  influence  of  the  legislative  branch  upon 
matters  of  administration  is  likely  to  be  confined  to  the  simple  assertion 
of  opinion. 

IV.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT:  ORIGINS  AND  PRINCIPLES2 

284.  The  Measures  of  Stein  and  Hardenberg. — The  origins  of  the 
local  governmental  regime  prevailing  in  the  kingdom  of  Prussia  to-day 
antedate,  to  some  extent,  the  nineteenth  century,  but  in  large  part  they 
are  to  be  traced  to  the  period  of  the  Stein-Hardenberg  ministries. 
By  the  memorable  Municipal  Edict  (Stadt^Ordnung)  of  November  19, 
1808,  Stein  set  up  a  complete  municipal  system,  with  burgomasters, 
executive  boards,  and  town  councils  (all  elective),  and  swept  away 
the  oligarchy  of  the  guilds,  broadened  the  franchise,  and  conferred  upon 
the  towns  almost  complete  independence,  even  in  the  matter  of  taxation. 
An  edict  of  1831  inaugurated  a  revival  of  the  right  of  the  central  authori- 
ties to  supervise  local  taxation  and  introduced  a  number  of  other 
changes,  but,  on  the  whole,  the  municipal  arrangements  of  the  present 
day  are  based  upon  the  edict  of  Stein.  More  immediately,  they  rest 
upon  an  act  of  1853,  applied  originally  only  to  the  six  eastern  provinces 
of  the  kingdom,  but  eventually  extended  to  the  others.  Aside  from 
its  introduction  of  the  three-class  electoral  system,  and  a  few  other 
matters,  this  law  follows  closely  the  measure  of  1808  and  but  consolidates 
and  extends  pre-existing  arrangements.3  Neither  Stein  nor  Hardenberg 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  298. 

2  The  judicial  system  of  Prussia,  regulated  in  common  with  that  of  the  other 
states  by  Imperial  law,  is  described  in  Chapter  n,  pp.  241-244.    Articles  86-97 
of  the  Prussian  constitution  deal  with  the  subject  of  the  judiciary,  but  many  of 
their  provisions  have  been  rendered  obsolete  by  Imperial  statutes. 

3  The  text  of  the  law  of  1853  is  printed  in  the  appendix  of  A.  W.  Jebens,  Die 
Stadtverordneten  (Berlin,  1905). 


266  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

touched  the  constitution  of  the  country  communes,  but  the  extension, 
during  the  Napoleonic  occupation,  of  the  French  communal  system  into 
all  the  Prussian  territories  west  of  the  Elbe  prepared  the  way  for  the 
essentially  uniform  system  which  was  established  by  the  Westphalian 
and  Rhineland  Edicts  of  1841  and  1845.  Edicts  of  1807  and  1811  abol- 
ished the  aristocratic  basis  of  the  ancient  circles  (Kreise),  and  after  1815 
the  circle  as  a  unit  of  local  government  next  above  the  commune  was 
extended  to  all  the  conquered  or  reconquered  territories.  The  revival 
of  the  old  provincial  organization  was  begun  also  in  1815,  when  the 
kingdom  was  divided  into  ten  provinces;  and  in  the  same  year  there 
were  established  twenty-six  government  districts  (Regierungsbezirke), 
two  or  three  within  each  province,  each  under  the  control  of  one  of  the 
government  boards  (Regierungen)  whose  creation  had  been  begun  in 
iSoS.1 

286.  The  Reforms  of  Bismarck. — Throughout  the  middle  portion 
of  the  nineteenth  century  the  administrative  system,  modified  but 
slightly  by  legislative  enactment,  continued  to  present  a  curious  com- 
bination of  elements  which  were  popular  and  elements  which  were 
narrowly  bureaucratic  and,  in  some  instances,  essentially  feudal.  Be- 
ginning in  1872,  Bismarck  addressed  himself  to  the  task  of  co-ordinating, 
strengthening,  and  to  a  certain  extent  liberalizing,  the  local  in- 
stitutions of  the  kingdom.  The  ends  at  which  he  aimed  principally 
were  the  abolition  of  conditions  by  which  it  was  made  possible  for  the 
whole  machinery  of  local  government  to  be  captured  from  time  to  time 
by  a  single  social  class  for  its  own  benefit,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
system  under  which  all  classes  of  the  population  might  be  admitted 
to  participation  in  the  management  of  purely  local  affairs.  In  the  course 
of  the  reform  which  was  carried  through  numerous  features  of  English 
local  institutions  were  copied  with  some  closeness.  In  a  number  of 
scholarly  volumes  appearing  between  1863  and  1872  the  genius  of  these 
institutions  had  been  convincingly  expounded  by  the  jurist  Rudolph 
Gneist,  whose  essential  thesis  was  that  the  failure  of  parliamentary 
government  in  Prussia  and  the  success  of  it  in  Great  Britain  was  attrib- 
utable to  the  dissimilarity  of  the  local  governmental  systems  of  the  two 
countries; 2  and  by  these  writings  the  practical  proposals  with  which  Bis- 
marck came  forward  were  given  important  theoretic  basis.  Neither 
Gneist  nor  Bismarck  sympathized  with  the  ideals  of  democracy,  but 

1  E.  Meier,  Die  Reform  der  Verwaltungsorganisation  unter  Stein  und  Harden- 
berg  (Leipzig,  1881). 

2 The  most  important  of  Gneist's  works  in  this  connection  are:  Geschichte  des 
self-government  in  England  (1863);  Verwaltung,  Justiz,  Rechtsweg  (1867);  Die 
preussische  Kreis-Ordnung  (1871);  and  Der  Rechtsstaat  (1872). 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  267 

both  believed  that  the  local  administrative  authorities  should  be  made 
to  include  not  only  a  paid,  expert  bureaucracy  but  a  considerable  ele- 
ment of  unpaid  lay  or  non-official  persons,  drawn,  however,  principally 
from  the  large  landowners  and  taxpayers.  The  obstacles  to  be  overcome, 
arising  from  public  indifference,  the  opposition  of  the  existing  bureau- 
cracy, the  apprehensions  of  the  Conservatives,  and  sectional  differences 
and  antipathies,  were  enormous,  but  by  proceeding  slowly  and  in  a 
conciliatory  spirit  the  Government  was  able  eventually  to  execute  the 
larger  portion  of  its  plans.  The  first  enactments,  for  the  circles  in  1872 
and  for  the  provinces  in  1875,  were  applied  only  to  those  provinces 
which  had  formed  the  old  monarchy,  but  during  the  ensuing  ten  years 
similar  measures  were  extended  to  the  remainder  of  the  kingdom,  and, 
finally,  after  the  dismissal  of  Bismarck,  the  task  was  rounded  out  by  a 
great  Landgemeinde-Ordnung  issued  for  the  seven  eastern  provinces  in 
1891.  By  this  series  of  enactments  the  administrative  methods  and 
machinery  of  the  kingdom  were  reduced  to  substantially  the  character 
which  they  to-day  possess. 

286.  Principles  of  the  Administrative  System. — Although  the  sys- 
tem is  still  one  of  the  most  complicated  in  Europe,  it  is  infinitely  sim- 
pler than  once  it  was,  and  the  bureaucratic  forces  in  it,  if  still  pre- 
dominant, have  been  subjected  to  a  variety  of  important  restraints. 
The  principles  which  underlie  it  have  been  summarized  by  an  English 
writer  as  follows:  "The  first  is  the  careful  distinction  drawn  between 
those  internal  affairs  in  which  the  central  government  is  thought  to  be 
directly  concerned,  and  those  which  are  held  to  be  primarily  of  only 
local  interest.  The  former  group  includes,  besides  the  army,  the 
state  taxes  and  domains,  ecclesiastical  affairs,  police  (in  the  wide 
Prussian  meaning  of  the  term),  and  the  supervision  of  local  author- 
ities; whilst  roads,  poor  relief,  and  a  number  of  miscellaneous  matters 
are  left  to  the  localities.  These  two  groups  are  kept  carefully  separate, 
even  when  they  are  entrusted  to  the  same  authority.  Secondly,  the 
work  of  the  central  government  is  'deconcentrated,'  that  is,  the 
country  is  divided  into  districts  (which  may  or  may  not  be  co-incident 
with  the  areas  of  local  self-government),  in  each  of  which  there  is 
a  delegation  of  the  central  authority,  doing  its  work,  and  thereby 
lessening  the  pressure  upon  the  departmental  offices  in  Berlin.  Some- 
thing like  this  deconcentration  is  found  in  the  educational  organiza- 
tion of  France,  and  also  in  the  office  of  the  Prefect,  but  it  is  far  more 
elaborate,  and  the  machinery  much  more  complex,  in  Prussia.  Thirdly 
the  comparative  independence  of  the  executive  from  the  deliberative 
authority,  and  the  predominance  of  the  officials,  which  characterize 
the  central  government  of  Prussia,  repeat  themselves  throughout  the 


268  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

whole  of  local  government.  And,  finally,  in  all  except  the  largest  of 
the  Prussian  areas  of  local  self-government,  the  executive  agents  of 
the  locality,  elected  by  it,  are  also  the  representatives  of  the  central 
government;  as  such  they  are  members  of  the  bureaucracy  and  con- 
trolled by  it,  and  in  consequence  they  naturally  look  to  the  center  for 
guidance  and  direction  in  regard  to  local  affairs.  Therefore,  whilst  it 
would  be  inaccurate  to  say  that  local  self-government,  as  understood 
in  England,  does  not  exist  in  Prussia,  it  is  true  that  self-government 
there  is  weak,  that  it  is  not  so  much  the  exercise  of  the  will  of  the 
locality  within  limits  prescribed  (for  the  protection  of  the  whole  com- 
munity) by  the  central  power,  as  the  exercise  of  the  will  of  the  latter 
by  the  locality.  In  fact,  the  bureaucracy  rules;  and  it  is  fortunate 
for  Prussia  that  hitherto  the  bureaucracy  has  remained  intelligent  and 
respective  of  new  ideas."  1 

At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  while  the  professional, 
life-long  holders  of  office  continue  to  preponderate  as  in  no  other 
important  country  of  western  Europe,  the  class  of  non-professionals 
is  large  and  constantly  increasing.  As  a  rule,  the  first  class  is  salaried, 
the  second  is  not;  the  non-professionals  being  simply  citizens  who, 
moved  by  considerations  of  a  civic  and  social  nature,  give  their  serv- 
ices without  prospect  of  pecuniary  reward.  The  principle  of  the 
system  is,  as  Ashley  characterizes  it,  that  of  government  by  experts, 
checked  by  lay  criticism  and  the  power  of  the  purse,  and  effectively 
controlled  by  the  central  authorities.  And,  although  the  details  of 
local  governmental  arrangements  vary  appreciably  from  state  to 
state,  this  principle,  which  has  attained  its  fullest  realization  in  Prus- 
sia, may  be  said  to  underlie  local  government  throughout  the  Empire 
in  general. 

V.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT:  AREAS  AND  ORGANS 

287.  The  Province. — Aside  from  the  cities,  which  have  their  special 
forms  of  government,  the  political  units  of  Prussia,  in  the  order  of 
their  magnitude,  are:  (i)  the  Provinz,  or  province;  (2)  the  Regierungs- 
bezirk,  or  district;  (3)  the  Kreis,  or  circle;  (4)  the  Amtsbezirk,  or  court 
jurisdiction;  and  (5)  the  Gemeinde,  or  commune.  Of  these,  three — the 
first,  third,  and  fifth — are  spheres  both  of  the  central  administration 
and  of  local  self-government;  two — the  second  and  fourth — exist  for 
administrative  purposes  solely.  Of  provinces  there  are  twelve:  East 
Prussia,  West  Prussia,  Brandenburg,  Pomerania,  Silesia,  Posen,  West- 
phalia, Saxony,  Hanover,  the  Rhine  Province,  Schleswig-Holstein, 

1  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government,  130-132. 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  269 

and  Hesse-Nassau.1  Unlike  the  French  and  Italian  departments,  the 
Prussian  provinces  are  historical  areas,  of  widely  varying  extent  and, 
in  some  instances,  of  not  even  wholly  continuous  territory.  Thus 
Hanover  is,  geographically,  the  kingdom  once  united  with  the  crown 
of  Great  Britain,  Schleswig-Holstein  comprises  the  territories  wrested 
from  Denmark  in  1864,  Saxony  is  the  country  taken  from  the  kingdom 
of  Saxony  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  Posen  represents 
Prussia's  ultimate  acquisition  from  the  Polish  partitions  of  the  eight- 
eenth century. 

In  the  organization  of  the  province  the  separation  of  functions  rela- 
ting to  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom  (Staatsgeschafte)  from  those  which 
relate  only  to  matters  of  a  local  nature  is  carried  out  rigidly.  In  the 
circle,  as  will  appear,  the  two  sets  of  functions  are  discharged  by  the 
same  body  of  officials;  in  the  district,  the  functions  performed  are 
wholly  of  a  national,  rather  than  a  local,  character;  but  in  the  province 
there  are  not  merely  two  sets  of  functions  but  two  entirely  separate 
groups  of  officials. 

288.  Provincial  Organs  of  the  Central  Administration. — For  the 
administration  of  affairs  of  general  interest,  such  as  police,  education, 
and  religion,  the  organs  within  the  province  are  (i)  the  Oberprasident, 
or  chief  president,  appointed  by  the  king  to  represent  the  central 
government  in  the  management  of  all  such  matters  as  concern  the 
entire  province  or  reach  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  a  single  Regier- 
ungsbezirk  administration,2  and  (2)  the  Provinzialrath,  a  provincial 
council  consisting  of,  besides  the  Oberprasident  or  his  representative 
as  presiding  officer,  one  professional  member  appointed  for  an  in- 
definite tenure  by  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  and  five  ordinary  citizen 
members  elected,  usually  for  a  term  of  six  years,  by  the  provincial 
Ausschuss,  or  committee.    The  Oberprasident  is  the  immediate  agent 
of  the  ministry,  as  is  the  prefect  in  France,  though  he  is  a  more  dignified 
and  important  functionary  than  his  French  counterpart.    None  the 
less,  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  Oberprasident 's  acts  are 
valid  only  after  having  been  accorded  the  assent  of  a  body  the  majority 
of  whose  members  are  chosen  within  the  province,  the  bureaucratic 
aspect  of  his  position  is  subjected  to  a  highly  important  limitation. 

289.  Provincial  Organs  of  Self-Government. — By  the  side  of  this 
official  group  stands  another,  quite  independent  of  it,  for  the  control 
of  affairs  of  purely  local  concern.    Its  organs  comprise:  (i)  the  Prov- 
inzialausschuss,  or  provincial  committee,  consisting  of  from  seven  to 

1  For  all  practical  purposes  the  city  of  Berlin  and  the  district  of  Hohenzollern 
form  each  a  province.    If  they  be  counted,  the  total  is  fourteen. 

2  Schulze,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Preussen,  63. 


270  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

fourteen  members  elected  for  six  years  by  the  provincial  Landtag, 
not  necessarily,  but  almost  invariably,  from  its  own  membership; 
(2)  a  Landeshauptmann  or  Landesdirektor,  a  salaried  executive  official 
elected  by  the  Landtag  for  six  or  twelve  years  and  confirmed  by  the 
crown;  and  (3)  the  Provinziallandtag,  or  provincial  assembly.  The 
Landeshauptmann  is  the  executive,  the  Provinzialausschuss  the 
consultative,  organ  of  local  self -administration;  the  Provinziallandtag 
is  the  provincial  legislature.  Members  of  the  Landtag  are  elected  for 
six  years  (one-half  retiring  every  three  years)  by  the  diets  of  the  cir- 
cles, and  they  comprise,  as  a  rule,  local  administrative  officials  of  the 
circles,  large  landowners,  and  other  well-to-do  persons.  Sessions  are 
convoked  by  the  crown  at  least  every  two  years.1  The  Landtag's 
functions  are  comprehensive.  They  include  the  supervision  of  char- 
ities, highways,  and  industry;  the  voting  of  local  taxes  and  the  appor- 
tionment of  them  among  the  circles;  the  enactment  of  local  laws;  the 
custody  of  provincial  property;  the  election  of  the  Landeshauptmann 
and  the  members  of  the  provincial  committee; and  the  giving  of  advice 
on  provincial  matters  at  the  request  of  the  central  government.  The 
Landtag  is  in  practice  less  independent,  however,  than  this  enumera- 
tion of  powers  might  seem  to  imply.  All  of  its  legislation  requires  the 
assent  of  the  king;  most  of  its  fiscal  arrangements  must  be  submitted 
to  one  or  more  of  the  ministers;  and  the  body  itself  may  be  dissolved 
at  any  time  by  the  crown. 

290.  The  Government  District. — Each  province  is  divided  into 
a  number  of  Regierungsbezirke,  or  districts,  of  which  there  are  now 
thirty-five  in  the  kingdom.2  Unlike  the  province,  the  district  exists 
for  purposes  of  general  administration  only.  It  therefore  has  no 
organs  of  self-government.  Its  Regierung,  or  "administration," 
consists  of  a  body  of  professional,  salaried  officials,  appointed  by 
the  crown  and  having  at  its  head  the  Regierungsprasident,  who  is, 
on  the  whole,  the  most  important  official  in  the  Prussian  local  service. 
The  subjects  that  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  functionaries 
of  the  district,  including  taxation,  education,  religion,  forests,  etc., 
are  very  comprehensive,  and  the  work  of  administration  is  carried 
on  chiefly  through  "colleges,"  or  boards.  For  the  management  of 
police  and  the  supervision  of  local  bodies  there  exists  a  Bezirksaus- 
schuss,  or  district  committee,  composed  of  the  Regierungsprasident, 

1  Towns  of  twenty-five  thousand  inhabitants  or  more  may,  by  ministerial  decree, 
be  set  off  as  separate  circles.    In  such  circles  Landtag  members  are  chosen  by  the 
municipal  officials. 

2  The  province  of  Schieswig-Holstein,  however,  contains  but  a  single  district. 
The  largest  number  of  districts  in  a  province  is  six,  in  Hanover. 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  271 

two  other  persons  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  four  members  elected 
by  the  Provinzialausschuss  for  six  years.  A  very  important  function 
which  this  body  has  possessed  since  1883  is  that  of  sitting,  under 
the  presidency  of  one  of  its  members  appointed  for  his  judicial  qualifi- 
cations, as  the  administrative  court  of  the  district.1 

291.  The  Circle. — In  the  Kreis,  or  circle,  as  in  the  province,  there 
exist  two  sharply  distinguished  sets  of  governmental  functions,  the 
general  and  the  local;  but  for  the  administration  of  both  there  is  a 
single  hierarchy  of  officials.  The  number  of  circles  within  the  king- 
dom is  about  490,  with  populations  varying  from  20,000  to  80,000. 
Each  includes  all  towns  lying  within  it  which  have  a  population  of  less 
than  25,000.  A  town  of  over  25,000  is  likely  to  be  created,  by  minis- 
terial order,  a  circle  within  itself,  in  which  case  the  functions  of  govern- 
ment are  exercised  by  the  municipal  authorities.2  The  essential  organs 
of  government  within  the  Landkreise,  or  country  circles,  are  three: 
the  Landrath,  the  Kreisausschuss,  and  the  Kreistag.  The  Landrath 
is  appointed  for  life  by  the  crown,  on  nomination  frequently  by  the 
Kreistag,  or  diet.  He  superintends  all  administrative  affairs,  general 
and  local,  within  the  circle;  fulfills  the  functions  of  chief  of  police; 
presides  over  the  Kreisausschuss  and  Kreistag;  and,  in  general,  oc- 
cupies within  the  circle  the  place  occupied  within  the  province  by 
the  Oberprasident.  Associated  with  him,  and  organized  under  his 
presidency,  is  the  Kreisausschuss,  or  circle  committee,  composed  of 
six  unofficial  members  elected  by  the  Kreistag  for  six  years.  In  addi- 
tion to  its  consultative  functions,  the  Kreisausschuss  sits  as  an  ad- 
ministrative court  of  lowest  grade. 

The  Kreistag  is  the  legislative  body  of  the  circle.  Its  members, 
numbering  at  least  twenty-five,  are  elected  for  a  term  of  six  years 
by  three  Verbande,  or  colleges,  the  first  being  made  up  of  the  cities, 
the  second  of  the  large  rural  taxpayers,  the  third  oi  a  complicated 
group  of  rural  interests  in  which  the  smaller  taxpayers  and  delegates 
of  the  communal  assemblies  preponderate.3  The  Kreistag  is  a  body 
of  substantial  importance.  It  chooses,  directly  or  indirectly,  all 
the  elective  officials  of  the  circle,  of  the  district,  and  of  the  province; 
it  creates  local  officers  and  regulates  their  functions;  it  enacts  legisla- 
tion of  a  local  nature;  and  it  votes  the  taxes  required  for  both  its  own 
and  the  provincial  administration. 

JThe  immediate  legal  basis  of  the  organization  of  the  district  is  the  Landes- 
verwaltungsgesetz  of  1883. 

*  Approximately  one  hundred  towns  have  been  so  constituted. 

3  For  a  fuller  statement  of  the  electoral  system  see  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  I.,  325. 


272  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

292.  The  Commune. — The  smallest  of  Prussian  governmental 
units  is  the  Gemeinde,  or  commune.1  Of  communes  there  are  two 
distinct  types,  the  rural  (Landgemeinde)  and  the  urban  (Stadtge- 
meinde).  The  governments  of  the  rural  communes  (some  36,000  in 
number)  are  so  varied  that  any  general  description  of  them  is  virtually 
impossible.  They  rest  largely  upon  local  custom,  though  reduced 
at  some  points  to  a  reasonable  uniformity  under  regulating  statutes 
such  as  were  enacted  for  the  communes  of  eight  of  the  twelve  provinces 
in  the  Landgemeinde-ordnung  of  iSgi.2  There  is  invariably  an  elective 
Schulze,  or  chief  magistrate.  He  is  assisted  ordinarily  by  from  two  to 
six  aldermen  (Schoffen)  or  councillors.  And  there  is  generally  a  govern- 
ing body  (Gemeindevertretung),  composed  of  elected  representatives, 
when  there  are  as  many  as  forty  qualified  electors, — otherwise  the  people 
acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  primary  assembly  (Gemeindeversammlung), — 
for  the  decision  of  matters  relating  to  local  schools,  churches,  high- 
ways, and  similar  interests.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
most  of  the  rural  communes  are  so  small  that  they  have  neither  the 
financial  resources  nor  the  administrative  ability  to  maintain  a  govern- 
ment of  much  virility.  Such  action  as  is  taken  within  them  is  taken 
almost  invariably  with  the  approval  of,  and  under  the  guidance  of, 
the  authorities  of  the  circle,  principally  the  Landrath.3 

In  their  governmental  arrangements  the  urban  communes  exhibit 
more  uniformity  than  do  the  rural,  though  occasionally  among  them 

1  The  Amtsbezirk  is  essentially  a  judicial  district.    See  p.  243.    In  the  eastern 
provinces  it  is  utilized  also  for  purposes  of  police  administration. 

2  For  an  annotated  edition  of  this  important  instrument  see  F.  Keil,  Die  Landge- 
meinde-ordnung (Leipzig,  1890). 

8  On  Prussian  local  government  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  308- 
3335  F.  J.  Goodnow,  Comparative  Administrative  Law  (2d  ed.,  New  York,  1903), 
I.,  295-338;  and  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government  (London,  1906),  125- 
186,  263-287.  Fuller  accounts  are  contained  in  Schulze,  Das  preussische  Staats- 
recht,  I.,  436-538;  K.  Stengel,  Organisation  der  preussischen  Verwaltung,  2  vols. 
(Berlin,  1884);  C.  Bornhak,  Preussisches  Staatsrecht,  3  vols.  (Freiburg,  1888-1890). 
and  Hue  de  Grais,  Handbuch  der  Verfassung  und  Verwaltung  in  Preussen,  etc. 
(i 7th  ed.,  Berlin,  1906).  Texts  of  local  government  acts  are  printed  in  G.  Anschutz, 
Organisations-gesetze  der  innern  Verwaltung  in  Preussen  (Berlin,  1897).  The  best 
description  in  English  of  Prussian  municipal  government  is  that  in  Munro,  The 
Government  of  European  Cities,  109-208.  A  good  brief  sketch  is  Ashley,  Local 
and  Central  Government,  153-164.  The  best  account  of  some  length  in  German  is 
H.  Kappleman,  Die  Verfassung  und  Verwaltungs-organisation  der  preussischen 
Stadte,  in  Schriften  des  Vereins  fur  Sozialpolitik  (Leipzig,  1905-1908),  vols.  117-119. 
Mention  may  be  made  of  A.  Shaw,  Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe 
(New  York,  1895),  Chaps.  5-6;  E.  J.  James,  Municipal  Administration  in  Germany 
(Chicago,  1901);  and  Leclerc,  La  Vie  municipale  en  Prusse,  in  Anndes  de  V&cole 
Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Oct.,  1888.  For  ample  bibliography  see  Munro, 
op.  cit.,  389-395- 


THE  PRUSSIAN  LANDTAG— LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  273 

there  is  wide  variation.  The  usual  organs  comprise  (i)  the  Stadtrath, 
an  executive  body  consisting  of  a  burgomaster  and  a  number  of  as- 
sistants, elected  for  six,  nine,  or  twelve  years,  or  even  for  life,  and  (2) 
the  Stadtverordnete,  or  municipal  council,  chosen  for  from  three 
to  six  years,  as  a  rule  by  an  electorate  identical  with  that  which  re- 
turns the  members  of  the  lower  branch  of  the  Prussian  Landtag. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES— ALSACE-LORRAINE 

293.  Essential  Similarity  of  Political  Institutions. — The  prepon- 
derance of  Prussia  among  the  twenty-five  states  comprised  within 
the  German  Empire  is  such  as  to  lend  the  governmental  system  of 
that  kingdom  an  interest  and  an  importance  which  attaches  to  the 
political  arrangements  of  no  one  of  the  remaining  members  of  the 
federation.  No  description  of  German  governments  would  be  ade- 
quate, none  the  less,  which  should  ignore  wholly  the  minor  states. 
A  number  of  these  states,  especially  Bavaria,  Baden,  Wiirttemberg, 
and  Saxony,  are  of  considerable  size,  and  the  populations  which  are 
governed  within  them  approximate,  or  exceed,  the  populations  of 
certain  wholly  independent  European  nations,  as  Norway,  Denmark, 
Switzerland,  Portugal,  and  several  of  the  states  of  the  southeast. 
It  would  be  unnecessary,  however,  even  were  it  possible,  to  describe 
in  this  place  twenty-five  substantially  independent  German  govern- 
mental systems.  Despite  no  inconsiderable  variation,  there  are 
many  fundamental  features  which  they,  or  the  majority  of  them, 
possess  in  common.  All  save  three — Hamburg,  Bremen,  and  Liibeck — 
are  monarchies.  All  save  two — Mechlenburg-Schwerin  and  Mech- 
lenburg-Strelitz — have  written  constitutions  :  and  elective  legislative 
chambers.  In  every  one  of  the  monarchies  the  total  lack  of  any- 
thing in  the  nature  of  ministerial  responsibility  to  a  parliamentary 
body  leaves  the  way  open  for  the  maintenance  of  vigorous  and  inde- 
pendent royal  authority,  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  in  all  of 
them,  as  is  pre-eminently  true  in  Prussia,  the  principle  of  autocracy 
lies  at  the  root  of  both  the  organization  and  the  methods  of  govern- 
ment. Local  governmental  arrangements  and  systems  of  adminis- 
tration of  justice  have  been  copied,  in  most  instances,  from  Prussia. 
It  will  suffice  to  speak  very  briefly,  first  of  a  few  of  the  more  important 
monarchies,  and  subsequently  of  the  city-state  republics. 

1  The  texts  of  these  constitutions,  in  the  form  in  which  they  existed  in  1884,  are 
printed  in  Stoerk,  Handbuch  der  deutschen  Verfassungen.  Even  in  the  Mecklen- 
burgs  there  are  certain  written  instruments  by  which  the  curiously  mediaeval  system 
of  government  there  prevailing  is  in  a  measure  regulated. 

274 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  275 

I.  THE  MORE  IMPORTANT  MONARCHIES 

294.  Bavaria:  Crown  and    Ministry. — After   Prussia,    the    most 
important  of  the  German  states,  in  point  both  of  area  and  of  popula- 
tion, is  the  kingdom  of  Bavaria.    The  constitution  at  present  in  op- 
eration in  Bavaria  was  promulgated  May  26,  1818,  though  it  has 
undergone  no  slight  modification  through  the  process  of  amendment 
since  that  date.1    The  original  instrument  replaced  a  fundamental 
law  of  May,  1808,  devised  by  the  king  of  Bavaria  in  imitation  of  the 
constitution  given  some  months  before  by  Napoleon  to  the  kingdom 
of  Westphalia;  and  even  the  present  frame  of  government  bears  un- 
mistakable evidence  of  French  influence.    The  functions  and  preroga- 
tives of  king  and  ministers  are  substantially  what  they  are  in  Prussia.2 
In  addition  to  the  Ministry  of  State,  consisting  of  the  seven  heads 
of  departments,  there  is  an  advisory  Staatsrath,  or  Council  of  State, 
comprising,  besides  the  ministers,  one  prince  of  the  royal  blood  and 
eight  other  members.     In  accordance  with  royal  proclamation  im- 
portant acts  of  the  government  require  the  counter-signature  of  all 
of  the  ministers.    This,  of  itself,  does  not  imply  any  larger  measure 
of  ministerial  subordination  than  exists  elsewhere  in  German  govern- 
ments, but  it  is  worth  observing  that  during  a  prolonged  period,  espe- 
cially after  1869,  there  was  persistent  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Clericals 
to  inject  into  the  Bavarian  system  the  principle  of  ministerial  respon- 
sibility in  the  parliamentary  sense  of  the  phrase,  and  that  although  the 
attempt  was  by  no  means  wholly  successful,  it  is  true  that  in  Bavaria 
the  ministers  occupy  in  practice  a  somewhat  less  independent  posi- 
tion than  in  other  German  monarchies.    The  device  of  interpellation, 
for  example,  not  only  exists  in  theory;  it  means  something,  as  else- 
where in  Germany  it  does  not,  in  actual  operation.     If  a  minister 
will  not  answer  an  interpellation  that  is  addressed  to  him,  he  is  obliged 
by  law  at  least  to  give  reasons  for  his  refusal.3 

295.  The  Bavarian  Landtag. — The  Landtag  of  Bavaria  consists 
of  two  chambers.     The  upper,  designated  officially  as  the  Kammer 
der  Reichsrate  ("chamber  of  the  council  of  the  Empire"),  is  com- 

1  Among  amendments  the  most  notable  have  been  that  of  March  9,  1828,  relating 
to  the  composition  of  the  upper  legislative  chamber;  those  of  June  4,  1848,  and 
March  21,  1881,  by  which  was  modified  the  composition  of  the  lower  house;  and 
that  of  April  8,  1906,  whereby  direct  elections  were  substituted  for  indirect. 

2  The  crown  is  hereditary  in  the  house  of  Wittelbach,  'by  which  it  was  acquired 
as  early  as  1180.    From  1886,  the  king,  Otto  I.,  being  insane,  the  powers  of  the 
sovereign  were  exercised  by  the  prince  regent  Luitpold,  until  his  death  December  12, 
1912. 

8  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  338. 


276  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

posed  of  princes  of  the  royal  family,  crown  dignitaries,  high  eccle- 
siastics, hereditary  nobles,  and  life  members  appointed  by  the  crown — 
in  all,  some  eighty-five  to  ninety  persons.  The  lower  chamber,  or 
Abgeordnetenkammer,  consists  of  163  members.  By  law  of  1881  the 
class  system  of  voting  in  Bavaria  was  replaced  by  an  equal  suffrage 
extended  to  all  males  paying  a  direct  tax.  Elections  continued  to  be 
indirect  until  1906,  when  provision  was  made  for  elections  by  direct 
and  secret  ballot.1  Deputies  are  chosen  for  a  term  of  six  years  and  are 
apportioned  in  such  a  manner  that,  normally,  there  is  one  for  every 
38,000  people.  Every  male  inhabitant  is  entitled  to  vote  who  at  the 
time  of  the  election  has  completed  his  twenty-fifth  year,  has  been  a 
Bavarian  citizen  during  at  least  one  year,  and  has  paid  to  tlje  state  a 
direct  tax  during  at  least  the  same  period.  The  Landtag  must  be 
summoned  not  less  frequently  than  once  every  three  years.2  The 
budget  is  made  up  on  a  two-year  basis,  so  that  sessions  are  held,  in 
point  of  fact,  biennially. 

296.  Saxony:  Crown  and  Ministry. — Third  among  the  states  of 
the  Empire  in  population,  though  fifth  in  area,  is  the  kingdom  of 
Saxony.  The  present  Saxon  constitution  was  promulgated  September 
4,  1831,  under  the  influence  of  the  revolutionary  movements  of  1830. 
By  it  a  monarchy  governed  under  a  mediaeval  system  of  estates  was 
converted  into  a  monarchy  governed,  at  least  nominally,  under  a 
modern  representative  regime.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  inaugu- 
ration of  constitutionalism  tempered  the  actual  authority  of  the 
monarch  very  slightly.  The  king  is  still  in  every  sense  the  supreme 
authority  within  the  state.3  He  appoints  and  dismisses  ministers  at 
will,  issues  ordinances  with  the  force  of  law,  and  exercises  far-reaching 
control  over  the  processes  of  legislation.  Upon  the  failure  of  the 
chambers  to  vote  supplies  which  are  held  to  be  essential,  he  may  even 
collect  and  expend  revenues  for  a  year  on  no  authority  apart  from  his 
own.  For  purposes  of  administrative  supervision  there  are  ministers 
of  War,  Finance,  Justice,  Foreign  Affairs,  the  Interior,  and  Education, 
and  the  ministers  collectively  comprise  a  Gesammt-Ministerium,  or 
ministry  of  state.  Measures  of  the  crown  are  countersigned  by  a 

1  Grassman,  Die  bayerische  Landtagswahlgesetz  vom  8  April,  1906,  in  Jahrbuch 
des  Oeffentlichen  Rechts  der  Gegenwart,  I.,  242.  A  law  of  April  15, 1908,  introduced 
the  principle  of  proportional  representation  in  Bavarian  municipal  elections. 

2M.  von  Seydel,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Bayern,  (Freiburg,  1888), 
in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch;  E.  Junod,  La  Baviere  et  I'Empire  allemande,  in  An- 
nales  de  l'£cole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Apr.  15,  1892. 

'The  crown  is  hereditary  in  the  Albertine  line  of  the  house  of  Wettin,  with 
reversion  to  the  Ernestine  line,  of  which  the  duke  of  Saxe- Weimar  is  now  the  head. 
The  present  sovereign  is  Frederick  August  III. 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  277 

minister;  but  there  is  no  means  by  which  a  minister  may  be  forced 
out  of  office  against  the  will  of  the  king  by  a  hostile  legislative 
chamber. 

297.  The  Saxon  Legislative  Chambers. — The  Saxon  legislature 
(Standeversammlung)  consists  of  two  houses.  The  upper,  designated 
simply  as  the  First  Chamber,  is  a  composite  body  consisting  of  forty- 
six  members,  in  addition  to  a  variable  number  of  adult  princes  of  the 
royal  house.  The  membership  comprises,  principally,  (i)  important 
prelates;  (2)  certain  university  officials;  (3)  proprietors  of  great  estates, 
twelve  elected  and  ten  appointed  by  the  crown  for  life;  (4)  the  first 
magistrates  of  Dresden  and  Leipzig;  (5)  six  burgomasters  of  other 
cities,  designated  by  the  king;  and  (6)  five  nobles  named  for  life  by 
free  choice  of  the  king.  The  lower  house  consists  of  ninety-one  dep- 
uties, of  whom  forty-three  are  elected  by  the  towns  and  forty-eight 
by  the  rural  communes.  At  one  time  members  were  chosen  by  direct 
secret  ballot  under  a  general  and  equal  suffrage  based  upon  a  small 
tax  qualification.  Fear  of  socialism  led,  however,  to  the  adoption,  in 
1896,  of  a  new  system  under  which  the  tax  qualification  was  retained, 
indirect  elections  were  substituted  for  direct  and  public  voting  for 
the  secret  ballot,  and  a  three-class  scheme  was  brought  into  operation 
which  threw  political  preponderance  into  the  hands  of  the  well-to-do 
scarcely  less  effectively  than  does  the  three-class  arrangement  in 
Prussia. 

After  prolonged  agitation  the  reactionary  measure  of  1896  was 
replaced  by  a  comprehensive  electoral  law  of  May  5,  1909  by  which 
direct  and  secret  voting  was  re-established  and  the  interests  of  prop- 
erty were  sought  to  be  safeguarded  by  a  newly  devised  system  of 
plural  votes.  As  the  law  now  stands  (i)  all  males  who  have  attained 
the  age  of  twenty-five  and  who  pay  direct  taxes  are  entitled  to  one 
vote;  (2)  men  owning  two  hectares  of  land,  or  paying  a  tax  upon  an 
annual  income  of  1,250, 1,400,  or  1,600  marks,  according,  respectively, 
as  such  income  is  drawn  from  land,  public  office,  or  general  sources, 
and  men  who  have  passed  certain  examinations,  are  entitled  to  two 
votes;  (3)  voters  paying  taxes  yearly,  as  above,  upon  an  income  of 
1,600,  1,900,  or  2,200  marks,  or  who  possess  four  hectares  of  land,  or 
who  as  teachers,  engineers,  artists,  or  writers  earn  an  income  of  1,900 
marks,  possess  three  votes;  (4)  persons  paying  a  tax,  as  above,  on  an 
income  of  2,200,  2,500,  or  2,800  marks,  or  owning  eight  hectares  of  land, 
have  four  votes;  and  (5)  every  person  belonging  to  the  first,  second,  or 
third  of  these  classes  is  allotted  an  additional  vote  when  he  attains  the 
age  of  fifty,  the  total  number  of  votes  possessed  by  one  elector  never 
exceeding  four.  Curiously  enough,  at  the  first  elections  held  under 


278  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

this  law,  in  October,  1909,  the  socialists,  who  previously  were  repre- 
sented by  but  a  single  member,  gained  twenty-five  seats,  or  upwards 
of  a  third  of  the  entire  number.  The  chambers  must  be  summoned  by 
the  king  at  least  once  in  two  years.  Both  may  propose  measures, 
but  in  practice  leadership  in  the  business  of  legislation  is  left  very 
largely  to  the  king  and  ministry.1 

298.  Wurttemberg:  Crown  and  Ministry. — The  constitution  of  the 
kingdom   of   Wurttemberg   was   promulgated,   following   prolonged 
political  controversy,  September  25,  1819.    At  the  head  of  the  state 
is  the  king,  whose  powers  are  in  some  respects  even  larger  than  those 
belonging  to  other  German  sovereigns.2   It  is  required  that  all  political 
acts,  except  the  bestowing  of  titles  of  nobility,  shall  be  performed  only 
with  the  sanction  in  writing  of  a  minister;  but,  by  reason  of  the  king's 
absolute  control  of  the  ministry,  this  constitutes  no  invasion  of  the 
crown's  essential  prerogative.     Of  ministers  there  are  six.     These 
collectively  comprise  the  Ministry  of  State,  and  they,  together  with 
certain  appointive  councillors,  likewise  constitute  the  Geheimerrath, 
or  Privy  Council,  which  the  sovereign  consults  at  pleasure. 

299.  The  Assembly  of  Estates :  Proportional  Representation. — The 
legislative  body  of  Wurttemberg  is  known  as  the  Standeversammlung, 
or  Assembly  of  Estates.     The  upper  chamber, — the  Standesherren, 
or  House  of  Lords, — consists  of  princes  of  the  royal  family;  other 
princes,  under  varying  conditions;  knights;  ecclesiastical  dignitaries; 
and  members  appointed  by  the  crown,  in  part  according  to  stipulated 
conditions  and  in  part  without  reference  to  any  necessary  considera- 
tion of  birth,  wealth,  or  religious  affiliation.    The  Abgeordnetenhaus, 
or  House  of  Deputies,  consists  of  ninety-two  members  chosen  for  a 
term  of  six  years,  as  follows:  one  from  each  of  the  administrative 
divisions  (Oberamtsbezirke) ;  six  from  Stuttgart  and  one  from  each  of 
six  other  important  towns;  nine  from  the  Neckar  and  Jagst  circle;  and 
eight  from  the  Black  Forest  and  Danube  circle.    Election  is  by  direct 
and  secret  ballot,  on  a  basis  of  universal  suffrage  for  males  over  twenty- 
five  years  of  age.    By  constitutional  amendment  of  July  16, 1906,  there 
was  introduced  a  scheme  of  proportional  representation  under  which 
the  six  deputies  of  Stuttgart  and  the  seventeen  of  the  Neckar  and 
Jagst  and  the  Black  Forest  and  Danube  circles  are  distributed  among 
the  several  political  groups  in  approximate  proportion  to  the  numerical 
strength  attained  by  these  groups  at  the  polls.    This  system,  an  inno- 
vation in  Germany,  was  tested  in  the  elections  of  December,  1906, 
and  January,   1907,  and  was  by  most  persons  adjudged  satisfac- 

1  O.  Mayer,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Sachsen  (Tubingen,  1909). 

2  The  reigning  sovereign  is  William  II. 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  279 

tory.1  The  remaining  sixty-nine  representatives  are  chosen  still  in  sin- 
gle member  districts.  Prior  to  the  amendment  of  1906,  the  chamber 
was  made  up  of  seventy  members  chosen  popularly  and  of  twenty- three 
who  sat  as  representatives  of  privileged  or  corporate  interests — thir- 
teen chosen  by  the  landowning  nobility,  nine  dignitaries  of  the  Prot- 
estant and  Catholic  churches,  together  with  the  Chancellor  of  the 
University  of  Tubingen.2 

300.  The  Government  of  Baden. — In  July,  1808,  a  constitutional 
edict  was  promulgated  in  Baden  in  imitation  of  the  fundamental  law 
which  Napoleon  in  the  previous  year  had  bestowed  upon  the  kingdom 
of  Westphalia.    August  22,  1818,  this  instrument  was  replaced  by  the 
constitution  at  present  in  operation.    Executive  power  is  vested  in  the 
grand-duke,  with  the  customary  provision  for  ministerial  counter- 
signature.    Legislative  power  is  shared  by. the  monarch  with  a  Land- 
stande  of  two  houses.    Under  a  liberalizing  law  of  August  24, 1904,  the 
upper  chamber  consists  of  princes  of  the  reigning  family,  nobles  oc- 
cupying hereditary  seats,  members  appointed  for  four  years  by  the 
grand-duke,  and  representatives  of  a  variety  of  ecclesiastical,  educa- 
tional, and  other  corporate  interests.    The  lower  house  is  composed 
of  seventy-three  representatives  elected  for  four  years  (twenty-four 
by  the  towns  and  forty-nine  by  the  rural  districts)  by  male  citizens 
over  twenty-five  years  of  age.    Direct  election  was  substituted  for 
indirect  in  1904.    Half  of  the  membership  of  the  lower  chamber  is 
renewed  every  two  years.    In  Baden  there  has  been  rather  more  prog- 
ress than  in  the  majority  of  German  states  toward  liberal  and  responsi- 
ble government.3 

II.  THE  LESSER  MONARCHIES  AND  THE  CITY  REPUBLICS 

301.  Monarchical  Variations. — With   relatively   unimportant   ex- 
ceptions, the  governments  of  the  remaining  seventeen  German  mon- 
archies exhibit  features  substantially  similar  to  those  of  the  govern- 

1 J.  Fontaine,  La  representation  proportionnelle  en  Wiirttemberg,  in  Revue 
Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Jan.,  1911;  ibid.,  La  representation  proportionnelle 
en  Wurttemberg  (Paris,  1909). 

2G.  Combes  de  Lestrade,  Monarchies  de  I'Empire  allemand,  181;  L.  Gaupp, 
Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Wurttemberg  (Freiburg  and  Tubingen,  1884), 
in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch;  W.  Bazille,  Das  Staats-  und  Verwaltungsrecht  des 
Konigreichs  Wiirttemberg  (Hanover,  1908),  in  Bibliothek  des  Oeffentlichen  Rechts 
der  Gegenwart.  The  monograph  of  Gaupp,  revised  by  him  in  1895  and  by  K.  Goz 
in  1904,  has  been  re-issued  as  essentially  a  new  volume  by  G6z  (Tubingen,  1008). 

3  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  L,  345;  K.'Schenkel,  Das  Staatsrecht  des 
Grossherzogthums  Baden  (Freiburg  and  Tiibingen,  1884),  in  Marquardsen's 
Handbuch. 


280  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ments  that  have  been  described.  In  each  of  the  states,  except  the  two 
grand-duchies  of  Mecklenburg-Schwerin  and  Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 
there  is  a  written  constitution,  promulgated,  in  most  instances,  during 
the  second  or  third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.1  Executive 
power  in  each  is  vested  in  the  monarch;  legislative  power  in  the  mon- 
arch and  a  Landtag,  or  assembly.  The  assembly  consists  ordinarily 
of  a  single  chamber,  varying  in  membership  from  twelve  to  forty- 
eight;  and  in  most  instances  the  members  are  chosen,  at  least  in  part, 
on  a  basis  of  manhood  suffrage.  In  some  states,  as  the  principality  of 
Lippe,  the  three-class  electoral  system  prevails;  and  elections  are 
still  very  commonly  indirect.  The  trend  toward  liberalism  is,  however, 
all  but  universal,  and  within  recent  years  numbers  of  important 
changes,  e.  g.,  the  substitution  of  direct  for  indirect  elections  in  Olden- 
burg and  in  Saxe- Weimar  in  1909,  have  been  brought  about.  In  the 
curiously  intertwined  grand-duchies  of  Mecklenburg  the  common 
Landtag  remains  a  typically  mediaeval  assemblage  of  estates,  based, 
in  the  main,  on  the  tenure  of  land.2 

302.  Hamburg. — The  three  free  cities  of  Hamburg,  Bremen,  and 
Liibeck  are  survivals  of  the  ancient  Hanseatic  League.  All  have 
republican  forms  of  government,  differing  in  only  minor  details.  The 
constitution  of  Hamburg  came  into  operation  January  i,  1861,  and 
was  revised  in  1879  and  in  1906.  The  principal  organs  of  government 
are  the  Senate  and  the  Biirgerschaft,  or  House  of  Burgesses.  The 
Senate  consists  of  eighteen  members  elected  for  life  by  the  House  of 
Burgesses,  but  in  accordance  with  an  indirect  method  so  devised  that 
the  Senate  itself  exercises  a  preponderating  influence  in  the  elections. 

1  The  dates  of  the  original  promulgation  of  constitutions  at  present  in  operation 
are:  Saxe-Weimar,  1816;  Hesse,  1820;  Saxe-Meiningen,  1829;  Saxe-Altenburg,  1832; 
Brunswick,  1832;  Lippe,  1836;  Oldenburg,  1852;  Waldeck,  1852;  Saxe-Coburg- 
Gotha,  1852;  Reuss  Jiingerer  Linie,  1852  and  1856;  Schwartzburg-Rudolstadt, 
1854;  Schwartzburg-Sonderhausen,  1857;  Anhalt,  1859;  Reuss  Alterer  Linie,  1867; 
and  Schaumburg-Lippe,  1868. 

2  Repeated  attempts  to  bring  about  a  modernization  of  the  Mecklenburg  con- 
stitutional system  have  failed.    Several  times  the  liberal  elements  in  the  Reichstag 
have  carried  a  proposal  that  to  the  Imperial  constitution  there  should  be  added  a 
clause  requiring  that  in  every  state  of  the  Empire  there  shall  be  an  assembly  repre- 
sentative of  the  whole  people.    On  the  ground  that  such  an  amendment  would 
comprise  an  admission  that  the  constitutions  of  the  states  are  subject  to  revision  at 
the  hand  of  the  Empire,  the  Bundesrath  has  invariably  rejected  the  proposal.    In 
1907    the   grand-duke   of   Mecklenburg-Schwerin   inaugurated  a  movement  for 
political  reform,  and  in  1908  there  was  drafted  a  constitution  providing  for  the 
establishment  of  a  Landtag  whose  members  should  be  chosen  in  part  by  the  landed, 
industrial,  professional,  and  official  classes  and  in  part  by  manhood  suffrage.    Late 
in  1909  the  Ritterschaft  (i.  e.,  the  estate  comprising  owners  of  knights'  fees) 
rejected  the  proposal,  as,  indeed,  it  had  rejected  similar  ones  on  earlier  occasions. 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  281 

A  senator  is  privileged  to  retire,  if  he  so  desires,  at  the  end  of  a  six- 
year  period,  or  at  the  age  of  seventy.  Of  the  eighteen,  half  must  have 
studied  finance  or  law,  while  of  the  remaining  nine  at  least  seven  must 
belong  to  the  class  of  merchants.  The  House  of  Burgesses  is  composed 
of  1 60  members,  elected  for  six  years  by  voters  whose  qualifications 
are  based  upon  property,  tax-paying,  or  position.  An  electoral  law 
of  March  5,  1906,  introduced  the  principle  of  proportional  repre- 
sentation, but  failed  to  break  the  dominance  of  the  well-to-do 
classes  in  the  chamber.  Half  of  the  membership  is  renewed  trien- 
nially.  The  service  is  unpaid  and,  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
compulsory. 

The  larger  portion  of  the  executive  authority  is  vested  in  the  Senate. 
After  the  fashion  of  the  prince  of  a  monarchical  state,  this  body  ap- 
points officials,  designates  and  instructs  the  delegate  in  the  Bun- 
desrath,  issues  ordinances,  and  supervises  administration.1  One 
senator  is  placed  at  the  head  of  each  of  the  nine  executive  departments. 
In  matters  of  legislation  the  powers  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  Biirger- 
schaft  are  concurrent.  Both  bodies  possess  the  right  of  legislative 
initiative,  and  all  laws,  treaties,  and  fiscal  arrangements  must  receive 
the  assent  of  both.  The  lower  chamber  elects  and  maintains  a  Biirger- 
ausschuss,  or  Committee  of  the  Burgesses,  consisting  of  twenty-five 
members,  whose  business  it  is  to  watch  over  the  proceedings  of  the 
Senate  and  the  administration  of  the  laws.  The  sessions  of  both  Senate 
and  Biirgerschaft  are  irregular  but  frequent. 

303.  Liibeck  and  Bremen. — The  government  of  Liibeck  rests  upon 
a  constitution  proclaimed  December  30,  1848,  but  revised  in  later 
years  upon  a  number  of  occasions.  The  system  is  essentially  similar 
to  that  in  operation  in  Hamburg,  the  principal  differences  being  that 
in  Liibeck  the  full  membership  of  the  Biirgerschaft  (120)  is  elected  by 
the  citizens  directly  and  that  the  Biirgerausschuss,  of  thirty  members, 
performs  larger  and  more  independent  functions.  The  constitution 
of  Bremen  dates  from  March  5,  1849,  Dut  was  revised  in  1854,  1875, 
and  three  times  subsequently.  As  in  Liibeck,  the  Burgerschaft,  of  150 
members,  is  elected  by  all  of  the  citizens,  but  under  a  class  system 
according  to  which  citizens  who  have  studied  at  a  university  return 
fourteen  members;  the  merchants,  forty;  the  mechanics  and  manu- 
facturers, twenty;  and  all  other  citizens  who  have  taken  the  burgher 
oath,  the  remaining  seventy-six.  The  Senate  consists  of  fourteen 
members. 

1  The  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  is  a  burgomaster,  chosen  for  one  year  by  the 
senators  from  their  own  number.  The  burgomaster  as  such,  however,  possesses  no 
administrative  power. 


282  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


III.  ALSACE-LORRAINE 

304.  Original  Problem  of  Organization. — By  the  terms  of  the  Peace 
of  Frankfort,  May  10,  1871,  France  ceded  to  Germany  the  province  of 
Alsace  and  a  portion  of  that  of  Lorraine — an  aggregate  of  5,605  square 
miles  of  hotly  disputed  territory  whose  population,  while  in  considera- 
ble measure  German,  was  none  the  less  predominantly  French.  The 
position  assigned  the  newly  acquired  territory  within  the  Empire  was 
anomalous.  It  was  determined  by  two  principal  considerations: 
first,  the  fact  that  the  districts  comprised  conquered  territory  in- 
habited by  a  discontented  people  and  liable  both  to  domestic  dis- 
order and  foreign  invasion;  and,  second,  the  further  fact  that  the 
newly  established  Empire  consisted  of  a  federation  of  semi-autonomous 
states,  into  which  subordinate  territory  acquired  by  war  could  not 
easily  be  made  to  fit.  The  annexed  lands  might  conceivably  have  been 
erected,  in  1871,  into  the  twenty-sixth  state  of  the  Empire;  but  in  no 
quarter  was  this  policy  so  much  as  suggested.  They  might  have  been 
incorporated  with  one  of  the  existing  states,  or  divided  among  two  or 
more  of  them;  but  this  would  have  involved  friction  at  a  time  when 
the  stability  of  the  new  regime  was  not  yet  assured.  The  only  course 
that  to  the  statesmen  and  jurists  of  the  day  appeared  feasible  was  to 
hold  the  new  territories  as  the  joint  property  of  the  states,  under  the 
sovereign  control  of  the  Imperial  Government;  and  the  arrangement 
hit  upon  in  the  execution  of  this  policy  was  perpetuated,  with  modifi- 
cation only  of  administrative  machinery,  from  1871  until  almost  the 
present  day. 

306.  The  Imperial  Basis  of  Government. — Prior  to  the  enactment 
of  the  controverted  Alsace-Lorraine  Constitution  Bill  of  1911  Alsace- 
Lorraine  was  not  a  member  of  the  German  federation,  but  was,  on  the 
contrary,  a  mere  dependency — a  Reichsland,  or  Imperial  territory. 
Beginning  with  a  virtual  dictatorship  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor, 
established  under  act  of  June  9,  1871,  the  governmental  arrange- 
ments within  the  territory  passed  through  a  number  of  stages  of  elab- 
oration. In  the  main,  the  organs  of  government  employed  until 
1911,  and  a  large  proportion  of  those  still  in  operation,  were  created, 
or  perpetuated,  by  the  constitutional  statute  of  July  4,  1879.  By  this 
instrument  the  sovereignty  of  the  territories  was  vested  specifically 
in  the  Empire;  the  exercise  of  that  sovereignty  was  vested  in  the 
Kaiser,  acting  alone  or  in  conjunction  with  the  Bundesrath.  The 
Kaiser  was  represented  personally  at  Strassburg,  as  he  still  is,  by  a 
Statthalter,  or  governor-general,  whose  powers  were  such  as  the 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  283 

Emperor  might  from  time  to  time  intrust  to  him.  At  Strassburg  also 
was  a  ministry,  with  a  secretary  of  state  at  the  head,  and  with  under- 
secretaries, appointed  by  the  Kaiser,  in  charge  of  four  departments; 
likewise  a  council  of  state,  which  was  a  purely  advisory  body  made 
up  of  the  secretary  and  under-secretaries,  certain  jucUcial  officials, 
and  from  eight  to  twelve  members  specially  appointed  by  the  Kaiser 
for  a  term  of  three  years. 

306.  The  Landesausschuss. — Such  privileges  of  self-government  as 
were  possessed  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  arose  from  the 
peculiar  and  complicated  arrangements  which  were  devised  for  legis- 
lation.   In  1874  an  Imperial  decree  called  into  being  a  Landesauss- 
chuss, or  Territorial  Committee.    This  body  consisted  originally  of 
thirty  members — ten  elected  in  each  of  the  three  districts  of  Upper 
Alsace,  Lower  Alsace,  and  Lorraine.    Its  function  at  the  outset  was 
merely  to  give  expert  advice  on  subjects  pertaining  to  local  legislation 
and  taxation.    By  law  of  1877,  however,  it  was  intrusted  with  power 
to  initiate  legislation  in  matters  pertaining  solely  to  the  territory. 
Measures  of  any  sort  designed  for  Alsace-Lorraine  exclusively  were 
enabled  to  be  carried  through  by  enactment  in  the  Territorial  Com- 
mittee, provided  they  received  the  assent  of  the  Bundesrath  and  were 
duly  promulgated  by  the  Emperor.    The  Committee  was  enlarged 
until  it  consisted  of  fifty-eight  members,  thirty-four  of  whom  were 
elected  by  the  assemblies  of  the  three  districts  from  their  own  mem- 
bership, four  others  being  chosen  by  the  communal  councils  of  Strass- 
burg, Metz,  Kolmar,  and  Miilhausen,  and  twenty  elected  by  indirect 
suffrage  from  the  twenty-three  circles  into  which  the  territories  were 
divided. 

307.  Legislative  Processes. — Several  conditions,  however,  operated 
to  impose  upon  what  might  appear  a  fairly  liberal  system  some  very 
serious  limitations.    In  the  first  place,  there  was  no  possibility  of  legis- 
lation which  was  wholly  within  the  control  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
territory.    The  laws  applicable  solely  to  Prussia  are  made  exclusively 
in  Prussia,  by  Prussian  authorities,  and  in  like  manner  those  of  every 
other  one  of  the  confederated  states.    But  those  of  Alsace-Lorraine, 
while  they  might  be  enacted  in  a  provincial  legislative  chamber,  ac- 
quired no  validity  until  they  should  have  been  approved  by  the  Empire 
through  its  agents,  the  Bundesrath  and  the  Kaiser.    In  the  second 
place,  the  method  of  legislation  which  has  been  mentioned  did  not  occupy 
the  field  alone.     With  insignificant  exceptions,  any  measure  which 
might  be  enacted  in  the  fashion  described  might  be  enacted  in  either 
of  two  other  ways,  in  neither  of  which  did  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory 
have  any  appreciable  influence.    A  measure  might  take  the  form  of 


284  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

a  simple  decree  of  the  Kaiser  with  the  consent  of  the  Bundesrath  and 
Reichstag;  or,  in  the  case  of  an  ordinance  having  the  provisory  force 
of  law,  it  might  be  promulgated  by  the  Kaiser  with  the  consent  of  the 
Bundesrath  alone.  The  fact  that  in  practice  the  Territorial  Committee 
ordinarily  did  participate  in  the  legislative  process  was  largely  offset 
by  the  exceeding  cumbersomeness  and  indirectness  of  the  system.  The 
normal  procedure  in  the  making  of  a  law  for  the  territory  involved  at 
least  eight  steps;  (i)  the  prqjet  was  drawn  up  by  the  Statthalter;  (2) 
it  was  approved  by  the  Council  of  State  at  Strassburg;  (3)  it  was  trans- 
mitted, through  the  Imperial  Chancellor,  to  the  Kaiser;  (4)  if  he  approved, 
it  was  sent  to  Strassburg  to  receive  the  Statthalter's  counter-signature; 
(5)  it  was  laid  before  the  Bundesrath',  the  members  of  which,  being 
but  delegates,  ascertained  from  their  respective  sovereigns  how  they 
should  vote;  (6)  if  all  had  gone  well,  the  Territorial  Committee,  at 
Strassburg,  passed  the  measure  through  the  usual  three  readings; 
(7)  it  was  returned  to  the  Bundesrath  again  to  be  approved;  and  (8)  it 
was  promulgated  by  the  Emperor — provided  he  did  not  see  fit  to  veto 
and  withhold  it,  as  he  had  an  entire  right  to  do.  Even  if  such  roundabout 
law-making  were  to  be  considered  in  itself  satisfactory  there  remained 
the  disquieting  condition  that  the  Territorial  Committee  rested  on  no 
basis  more  substantial  than  a  body  of  Imperial  decrees  capable  at  any 
time  of  being  altered,  or  even  revoked.  Not  merely  was  it  altogether 
lacking  in  the  independence  of  action  enjoyed  by  the  diets  of  the 
federated  states;  its  very  existence  was  precarious. 

308.  The  Movement  for  Autonomy. — Throughout  a  prolonged  period 
there  was  in  the  territory  insistent  demand  for  the  grant  of  a  more 
independent  status,  to  involve  the  eventual  placing  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
on  a  footing  of  constitutional  equality  with  Saxony,  Bavaria,  and  the 
other  confederated  states.  Within  very  few  years  after  the  annexation 
there  sprang  up,  within  the  Territorial  Committee  first  of  all,  a  group  of 
"autonomists,"  led  by  the  secretary  of  state  Baron  Zorn  von  Bulach, 
who  insisted  in  season  and  out  upon  statehood  for  the  conquered  ter- 
ritory, and  within  a  decade  the  campaign  gained  momentum  until  it  en- 
listed the  support  of  men  of  all  political  faiths  and  became  the  principal 
rallying  issue  of  Alsatian  sentiment  and  enthusiasm.  Until  within 
recent  years  the  tension  of  the  international  situation  was  alone  sufficient 
to  restrain  the  Imperial  Government  from  according  the  demand 
favorable  consideration.  With  the  passing  of  time  the  clanger  of  inter- 
national conflict  in  which  Alsace-Lorraine  should  be  involved  was,  how- 
ever, perceptibly  diminished,  and  the  way  was  to  this  extent  cleared 
for  a  readjustment  of  the  territory's  anomalous  status  on  the  merits 
of  the  purely  administrative  and  constitutional  questions  involved. 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  285 

The  programme  of  the  autonomists,  as  it  finally  assumed  shape, 
embraced  four  fundamental  points:  (i)  the  elevation  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
to  membership  in  the  German  Empire,  with  all  the  rights  and  immuni- 
ties commonly  possessed  by  existing  members;  (2)  the  vesting  of  the 
executive  authority  in  an  independent  head  of  the  state,  whether  a 
king  of  a  newly  established  line,  a  regent  appointed  for  life,  or  even  a 
president  of  a  republic;  (3)  the  establishment  within  the  state  of  a  full- 
fledged  legislative  body,  with  powers  equivalent  to  those  exercised  by 
the  Landtags  of  the  existing  states;  and  (4)  the  elimination  of  Kaiser, 
Bundesrath,  and  Reichstag  from  all  legislation  which  concerns  Alsace- 
Lorraine  exclusively.  Taking  their  stand  on  the  situation  as  it  was, 
and  accepting  the  union  with  Germany  with  such  grace  as  they  could 
muster  and  assuming  that  it  is  to  be  permanent,  the  exponents  of 
autonomy  proposed  to  make  the  best  of  a  state  of  things  not  of  their 
choosing. 

309.  The  Government  Bill  of  1910. — Under  pressure  of  persistent 
public  demand,  the  Imperial  Government  prepared  an  elaborate  measure 
upon  the  subject,  which,  after  having  been  approved  by  the  Bundesrath, 
was  submitted  to  the  Reichstag,  December  17,  1910.    Although  Chan- 
cellor von  Bethmann-Hollweg  had  declared  unreservedly  for  reform, 
the  Government's  proposals  fell  far  short  of  the  demands  of  the  autono- 
mist leaders.    The  cardinal  features  of  the  Imperial  programme,  were, 
in  brief:  (i)  Alsace-Lorraine  should  remain  a  dependency  of  the  Empire; 
(2)  sovereign  authority  therein  should  continue  to  be  exercised  by 
the  Kaiser,  as  the  representative  of  the  states,  through  his  accustomed 
agent,  the  Statthalter  at  Strassburg;  (3)  the  legislative  functions  of  the 
Bundesrath  and  Reichstag  in  matters  pertaining  exclusively  to  Alsace- 
Lorraine  should  be  terminated;  and  (4)  such  legislation  should  thereafter 
be  enacted  by  a  bicameral  diet  at  Strassburg.    The  members  of  the 
upper  chamber  of  this  diet,  not  to  exceed  thirty-six,  were  in  part  to  sit 
by  ex-officio  right,  but  some  were  to  be  named  by  chambers  of  commerce 
and  other  professional  and  business  organizations,  and  a  maximum  of 
one-half  might  be  appointed  by  the  Emperor,  on  nomination  of  the 
Bundesrath.    The  sixty  members  of  the  lower  house  were  to  be  chosen 
by  manhood  suffrage,  but  electors  over  thirty-five  years  of  age  were 
to  have  two  votes,  and  those  over  forty-five  three. 

310.  The  Bill  Amended  and  Adopted,  1911. — By  those  whose  object 
was  the  procuring  of  statehood  for  Alsace-Lorraine,  this  plan  was  pro- 
nounced inadmissible.     It  did  not  alter  the  legal  status  of  the  territory; 
neither,  it  was  alleged,  did  it  give  promise  of  increased  local  independence 
in  law-making  or  administration.    Conservatives,  on  the  other  hand, 
objected  to  the  provision  which  was  made  for  manhood  suffrage.    After 


286  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

being  debated  in  the  Reichstag  the  measure  was  referred  to  a  special 
committee,  by  which  amendments  were  reported  to  the  effect  that  the 
territory  should  be 'created  a  state  of  the  Empire  and  the  Statthalter 
should  be  appointed  for  life.  The  second  of  these  amendments  the 
Government  refused  positively  to  accept,  but  it  was  agreed  finally 
that  the  territory  should  be  recognized  as  substantially  a  state  of  the 
Empire,  and,  as  such,  should  be  allowed  three  votes  in  the  Bundesrath. 
Since  1879  the  Statthalter  had  been  authorized  to  send  to  the  Bundes- 
rath four  "commissioners"  who  might  speak  when  the  subject  under 
consideration  touched  the  affairs  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  but  might  not  vote. 
Since  under  the  new  arrangement  the  three  members  representing 
Alsace-Lorraine  were  to  be  appointed  and  instructed  by  the  Statthalter, 
who  is  himself  practically  the  delegate  of  the  king  of  Prussia,  the 
Bundesrath  insisted  upon  and  obtained  the  special  stipulation  (i)  that 
the  votes  of  Alsace-Lorraine  should  not  be  counted  in  favor  of  the  Prus- 
sian view  of  any  question  except  when  Prussia  should  be  able  to  procure 
a  majority  without  such  votes  and  (2)  that  they  should  not  be  counted  for 
or  against  any  proposal  to  amend  the  Imperial  constitution.  The  re- 
vised bill  was  passed  in  the  Reichstag,  May  26, 1911,  and  in  accordance 
with  a  decree  of  August  26  the  new  constitution  was  put  in  operation 
September  i. 

311.  The  Governmental  System  To-day. — Supreme  executive  author- 
ity is  lodged,  as  before,  in  the  Emperor.  It  is  exercised,  in  the  main,  by 
the  Statthalter,  who  is  appointed  by,  and  holds  office  at  the  pleasure  of, 
the  Emperor.  In  the  Statthalter  are  vested  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
in  Alsace-Lorraine  that  hitherto  have  been  held  and  exercised  by  the 
Imperial  Chancellor.  He  appoints  and  instructs  the  plenipotentiaries 
in  the  Bundesrath,  and  Imperial  orders  and  decrees  have  legal  effect 
only  when  signed  by  him.  All  laws  require  the  assent  of  the  Emperor 
and  the  two  chambers  of  the  diet,  and  the  budget  of  the  year  must  be 
laid  first  before  the  lower  chamber  and  must  be  accepted  or  rejected 
in  its  entirety  by  the  upper  one.  The  Emperor  has  the  right  to  summon, 
to  adjourn,  and  to  dissolve  the  chambers  simultaneously.  Members  of 
the  popular  branch  are  elected  by  direct  and  secret  ballot  and  majority 
vote  by  all  male  German  citizens  twenty-five  years  of  age  who  have 
resided  in  Alsace-Lorraine  at  least  three  years;  except  that  a  residence 
of  one  year  qualifies  teachers  and  occupants  of  official  posts.  The 
plural  voting  proposal  contained  in  the  Government  bill  of  1910  was 
abandoned.  The  first  chamber  elected  under  the  new  system — that 
chosen  in  October,  1911 — contained  twenty-five  Centre  members, 
eleven  Socialists,  ten  members  of  the  National  Alsace-Lorraine  group,1 
1  The  party  which  had  contended  most  vigorously  for  Alsatian  autonomy. 


THE  MINOR  GERMAN  STATES  287 

eight  Liberal  Democrats,  and  six  Independents.  The  independent 
attitude  promptly  assumed  by  the  body  elicited  from  the  Emperor,  in 
May,  1912,  a  threat  that  the  new  constitution  might  be  abrogated  and 
Alsace-Lorraine  incorporated  with  Prussia.  The  incident  provoked  a 
storm  of  criticism,  and,  outside  the  rabid  Pan-German  press,  the  Im- 
perial pronouncement  was  commented  upon  everywhere  adversely.1 

1  On  the  organization  of  Alsace-Lorraine  prior  to  1911  see  Howard,  The  German 
Empire,  Chap.  10;  Laband,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  deutschen  Reiches,  §§  67-69; 
P.  Gerber,  La  condition  de  1'Alsace-Lorraine  dans  1'Empire  allemand' (Lille,  1906), 
and  L' Administration  en  Alsace-Lorraine,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  Oct.-Dec., 
1909.  On  the  problem  of  reform  and  the  legislation  of  1911  see  R.  Henry,  La 
question  d' Alsace-Lorraine,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  Feb.  i  and 
March  16,  1904;  P.  Braun,  Alsace-Lorraine — La  r£forme  de  la  constitution,  ibid., 
Nov.  16,  1905,  and  Jan.  i,  1906;  Alsace-Lorraine  en  1908,  ibid.,  March  i,  1909; 
Alsace-Lorraine — les  preludes  d'une  lutte  nationale,  ibid.,  April  16,  1910;  La 
constitution  d' Alsace-Lorraine,  ibid.,  March  16,  1911;  A.  Wetterle",  L'Autonomie 
de  1'Alsace-Lorraine,  in  Le  Correspondent,  Aug.  25,  1910,  La  nouvelle  loi  constitu- 
tionnelle  d'Alsace-Lorraine,  ibid.,  June  10,  1911,  and  Les  elections  en  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  ibid.,  Nov.  25,  1911;  Eccard,  L'Autonomie  de  PAlsace-Lorraine,  in 
Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Nov.  10,  1910;  G.  Bruck,  Die  Reform  der  Ver- 
fassung  von  Elsass  Lothringen,  in  Annalen  des  deutschen  Reichs,  1911,  I;  and  P. 
Heitz,  La  loi  constitutionnelle  de  1' Alsace-Lorraine  du  31  mai,  1911,  in  Revue  du 
Droit  Public,  July-Sept.,  1911,  containing  French  translations  of  the  documents. 
See  also  Annual  Register  for  1911,  328-332. 


PART  m.— FRANCE 

CHAPTER  XV 
CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789 

I.  A  CENTURY  OF  POLITICAL  INSTABILITY 

Among  European  states  of  the  first  order  there  is  but  a  single  republic. 
In  Great  Britain  the  conspicuous  success  with  which  monarchy  has 
been  tempered  with  democracy  has  left  the  partisans  of  the  republican 
style  of  government  slender  ground  upon  which  to  stand.  Russia  has 
as  yet  but  partially  emerged  from  a  political  status  in  which  monarchy 
is  both  natural  and  inevitable.  Germany  and  Italy,  in  days  compara- 
tively recent,  achieved  nationality  through  processes  absolutely  con- 
ditioned upon  monarchical  leadership.  And  it  is  all  but  inconceivable 
that  the  heterogeneous  nationalities  of  Austria-Hungary  should  thus 
long  have  been  held  together  by  any  force  less  tangible  and  commanding 
than  the  personality  of  a  common  sovereign.  Although  in  some  of  these 
instances  the  functions  ordinarily  associated  with  monarchy  are  more 
nominal  than  actual,  the  fact  remains  that  in  no  one  of  the  greater 
European  states,  save  France,  has  it  as  yet  been  found  expedient,  or 
possible,  to  dispense  with  royalty  as  an  agency  of  public  authority. 

312.  The  Multiplicity  of  Constitutions. — The  chain  of  circumstances 
by  which  the  people  of  France  have  been  brought  to  their  present  repub- 
lican form  of  government  constitutes  one  of  the  most  remarkable  chap- 
ters in  the  history  of  modern  Europe.  After  centuries  of  governmental 
centralization,  under  conditions  which  enabled  monarchy  to  do  its  best, 
and  its  worst,  there  came  the  gigantic  disruption  of  1789,  inaugurating 
a  series  of  constitutional  changes  by  which  was  imparted  to  the  political 
history  of  the  French  nation  in  the  nineteenth  century  a  more  unsettled 
character  than  that  exhibited  by  the  public  economy  of  any  other 
European  state.  France  to-day  is  governed  under  her  eleventh  con- 
stitution since  the  fall  of  the  Bastile.  All  but  one  of  the  jeleven  have 
been  actually  in  operation,  during  a  longer  or  a  shorter  period.  But, 
prior  to  the  fundamental  law  at  present  in  effect,  no  one  of  these  in- 
struments attained  its  twentieth  year.  Once  having  cut  loose  from  her 
ancient  moorings,  the  nation  became  through  many  decades  the  play- 

289 


290  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

thing  of  every  current  that  swept  the  political  sea.  It  is  only  within 
our  own  generation  that  she  appears  definitely  to  have  righted  herself 
for  a  prolonged  and  steady  voyage.  The  constitutional  system  of  the 
Third  Republic  is  a  product,  not  of  orderly  evolution,  but  of  disruption, 
experimentation,  compromise.  It  represents  a  precarious  balance  which 
has  been  struck  between  those  forces  of  radicalism  and  conservatism, 
of  progress  and  reaction,  for  whose  eternal  conflict  France  pre-eminently 
has  furnished  a  theatre  since  1789.  Its  connection  with  the  remoter 
past  is  very  much  less  direct  and  fundamental  than  is  that  of  the  govern- 
mental system  of  England,  Russia,  Austria-Hungary,  or  the  Scandi- 
navian states.  At  certain  points,  however,  as  will  appear,  this  connection 
is  vital.  And  the  relation  of  the  constitution  of  1871-1875  to  the  several 
instruments  by  which  it  was  more  immediately  preceded  is  essential  to 
be  observed,  because  this  body  of  fundamental  law  comprises  but  the 
latest  in  a  series  of  devices  through  which  France  since  1789  has  sought 
orderliness  and  stability  in  public  affairs.  Some  of  these  devices  were 
shaped  under  the  preponderating  influence  of  radical  democracy,  some 
under  that  of  monarchical  reaction;  but  all  are  of  interest  and  importance. 
For  the  purpose  in  hand  it  will  be  sufficient  to  review  briefly  the  princi- 
pal aspects  of  the  several  constitutional  systems  whose  devising  or  opera- 
tion has  contributed  with  some  directness  to  the  political  institutions 
and  experience  of  the  France  of  to-day. 


II.  THE  REVOLUTIONARY  AND  NAPOLEONIC  ERA 

f\A  ,{,  Uf  V 

313.  The  Constitution  of  1791. — During  the  decade  which  elapsed 
between  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  and  the  establishment  of  the 
Consulate  there  were  in  actual  operation  in  France  two  successive 
constitutions:  that  of  September  3,  1791,  which  was  in  effect  sub- 
verted by  the  uprising  of  August  10,  1792,  and  that  of  5  Fructidor  of 
the  Year  III.  (August  22,  1795),  terminated  by  the  coup  d'etat  of  18 
.Brumaire  of  the  Year  VIII.  (November  9,  1799).  The  instrument 
of  1791,  essentially  a  compilation  of  measures  voted  during  the  years 
1789-1791,  was  prepared  by  a  committee  appointed  by  the  National 
Assembly,  September  15, 1789.1  It  was  shaped,  in  the  main,  by  men  who 
were  desirous  of  preserving  the  form  while  destroying  the  substance  of 
monarchy.  At  the  head  of  the  state  was  allowed  to  remain  the  king, 
shorn,  however,  of  many  of  his  accustomed  prerogatives  and  obliged 
to  exercise  under  stringent  restraint  the  few  that  were  left  him.  "  King 
of  the  French,"  he  henceforth  was  to  be,  "by  the  grace  of  God  and  the 

1  A  constitutional  committee  of  five  had  been  appointed  the  previous  July  14; 
but,  its  recommendation  proving  unacceptable  to  the  Assembly,  it  had  resigned, 
September  n. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  291 

will  of  the  nation."  The  legislative  body  (Corps  legislatif)  was  made  to 
consist  of  a  single  chamber  whose  745  members,  chosen  for  a  two-year 
term  according  to  a  system  of  indirect  suffrage,  were  distributed  among 
the  eighty-three  newly  created  departments  upon  the  three-fold  basis 
of  extent,  population,  and  contribution  of  direct  taxes.1  Only  male 
citizens  who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  whose  annual 
payment  of  direct  taxes  was  the  equivalent  of  three  days'  labor,  were 
entitled  to  participate  in  the  choice  of  the  electors,  by  whom,  in  turn, 
were  chosen  the  deputies.  The  powers  of  the  legislative  body  were 
ample.  In  respect  to  measures  generally,  the  king  possessed  only  a 
suspensive  veto;  that  is  to  say,  any  measure  passed  by  three  successive 
legislatures  acquired,  without  the  royal  sanction,  the  force  of  law. 
Fiscal  measures  might  not  be  vetoed  at  all.  The  king  was  given  no 
power  to  prorogue  or  to  dissolve  the  legislative  chamber,  and  without  the 
assent  of  that  body  no  proclamation  of  war,  and  no  treaty,  was  valid. 
To  it  the  ministers  in  charge  of  the  six  executive  departments  were  made 
absolutely  responsible.  In  conformity  with  prevailing  ideas  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  and  the  separation  of  powers,  provision  was 
made  that  all  judges  should  be  elected  popularly,  as  also  all  local  adminis- 
trative authorities.2 

314.  The  Constitution  of  the  Year  I.  (1793).— The  constitution 
of  1791  was  in  operation  rather  less  than  a  twelvemonth.  The  Corps 
legislatif  elected  under  it,  after  precipitating  war  with  Austria,  gave 
way  before  the  rising  demand  for  the  abolition  of  monarchy,  called 
into  being  a  constituent  convention  of  782  members,  and  voted  its 
own  dissolution.3  September  21,  1792,  the  Convention  met  and  de- 
creed the  abolition  of  the  monarchy  and  the  establishment  of  a  re- 

1  Of  the  whole  number  of  deputies,  247  were  apportioned  according  to  depart- 
mental areas  and  249  according  each  to  population  and  tax  quotas. 

2  The  texts  of  all  French  constitutions  and  fundamental  laws  since  1789  are 
printed  in  several  collections,  of  which  the  best  is  L.  Duguit  et  H.  Monnier,  Les 
constitutions  et  les  principales  lois  politiques  de  la  France  depuis  1789  (Paris, 
1898).    Other  serviceable  collections  are  F.  H61ie,  Les  constitutions  de  la  France 
(Paris,  1880)  and  E.  Pierre,  Organisation  des  pouvoirs  publics;  recueil  des  lois 
constitutionnelles  et  organiques  (Paris,  1902).     For  English  versions  see  F.  M. 
Anderson,  The  Constitutions  and  other  Select  Documents  illustrative  of  the  His- 
tory of  France,  1789-1907  (2d  ed.,  Minneapolis,  1908).    The  various  constitutions 
are  excellently  summarized  in  M.  Block,  Dictionnaire  ge~n6ral  de  la  politique,  2  vols. 
(Paris,  1884),  I.,  494-518.    For  the  text  of  the  constitution  of  1791  see  Duguit  et 
Monnier,  1-35;  H61ie,  268-294;  Anderson,  58-95.    For  summary,  Block,  I.,  494- 
497.    Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  253-269;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  VIII., 
Chap.  7. 

3  The  members  of  the  Convention  were  elected  by  manhood  suffrage,  one  of  the 
last  acts  of  the  Legislative  Body  having  been  the  repeal  of  the  tax  qualification  re- 
quired by  the  constitution  of  1791. 


292  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

public.1  Mindful  for  the  time  of  the  purpose  of  its  creation,  the  new 
assembly  appointed,  October  n,  a  committee  of  nine  to  which  was 
intrusted  the  task  of  drafting  a  republican  constitution.  February  15, 
1793,  the  committee  reported,  and  June  24  the  Convention  adopted 
an  ultra-republican  frame  of  government,  the  principal  features  of 
which  were  an  executive  council  consisting  of  twenty-four  members 
chosen  by  the  legislative  body  from  candidates  named  by  the  second- 
ary electors  of  the  departments;  a  unicameral  Corps  legislatif  chosen 
indirectly  by  manhood  suffrage  for  one  year,  with  power  to  enact 
"decrees,"  but  only  to  propose  "laws";  and  an  arrangement  whereby 
projected  laws  were  to  be  communicated  to  primary  assemblies  of 
citizens  to  be  voted  upon  after  the  principle  of  the  referendum.2 

315.  The  Constitution  of  the  Year  III.  (1795). — By  reason  of  the  in- 
tensity of  party  strife  within  the  Convention,  and  the  critical  condi- 
tion of  affairs  generally,  the  constitution  of  1793,  although  duly 
ratified  by  the  people,  was  never  put  in  operation.  On  the  basis  of  a 
decree  of  December  4,  1793,  the  Convention  maintained  through 
upwards  of  two  years  a  revolutionary  provisional  government,  and 
when,  finally,  in  October,  1795,  the  body  passed  out  of  existence, 
it  left  behind  it  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Year  III.  an  instrument 
of  government  essentially  different  from  the  proposed  instrument 
of  1793.  The  Constitution  of  the  Year  III.  was  framed  under  a  hur- 
ried order  of  the  Convention  by  a  committee  of  eleven.  The  Con- 
vention adopted  the  committee's  plan  with  but  few  modifications, 
and  when  the  project  was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote  it  was  approved 
by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  1,057,390  to  49,997.  September  23, 
1795,  the  new  frame  of  government  was  solemnly  promulgated. 

The  instrument  of  1795,  like  that  of  1791,  was  introduced  by  a 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  of  the  Citizen,  in  which  were 
stated  succinctly  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Revolution. 
Legislative  power  was  henceforth  to  be  vested  in  two  chambers  con- 
jointly— a  Council  of  Five  Hundred  and  a  Council  of  Elders — the 
members  of  which  should  be  chosen  by  the  same  electors,  but  under 
differing  conditions  of  eligibility.  The  term  of  members  of  both 
chambers  was  fixed  at  three  years,  and  one-third  of  the  membership 
was  renewable  annually.  The  franchise  was  broader  than  under 

1  September  22  was  reckoned  the  first  day  of  the  Year  I.  of  French  liberty,  and 
the  fundamental  law  of  June  24, 1793,  was  known  as  the  constitution  of  the  Year  I. 
For  an  illuminating  sketch  of  the  rise  of  the  republic  see  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  The  Re- 
publican Tradition  in  Europe  (New  York,  1911),  Chap.  4. 

2  Text  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  66-78;  H61ie,  Les  Constitutions, 
376-384;    Anderson,  Constitutions,   171-184.     Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire 
G6n6ral,  497-498. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  293 

the  constitution  of  1791,  being  extended  now  to  all  citizens  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age  who  were  able  to  read  and  write  and  who 
followed  a  trade  or  were  liable  to  direct  taxation;  but  the  earlier 
system  of  indirect  election  by  means  of  electoral  colleges  was  retained. 
Upon  the  lower  chamber  alone  was  conferred  the  right  of  initiating 
legislation.  The  Elders,  whose  number  was  fixed  at  250,  might  ap- 
prove or  reject,  but  were  not  permitted  to  amend,  any  measure  sub- 
mitted to  them.  Executive  power  was  vested  in  a  Directory  con- 
sisting of  five  members  chosen  for  a  term  of  five  years,  one  member 
retiring  annually.  Directors  were  selected  by  the  Council  of  Elders 
from  a  double  quota  of  nominees  offered  by  the  Council  of  Five 
Hundred.  Aside  from  its  creation  of  a  plural,  republican  executive, 
the  most  notable  feature  of  the  constitution  was  its  provision  for  the 
establishment  of  a  bicameral  legislative  system,  until  now  generally 
opposed  by  French  reformers.1 

316.  The  Constitution  of  the  Year  VIII.  (1799) :  Electoral  System.— 
The  constitution  of  the  Year  III.  continued  in  operation  from  October, 
1795,  to  Napoleon's  coup  d'etat  of  18  Brumaire  of  the  Year  VIII. 
(November  9,  1799).  In  the  course  of  a  month  and  a  half  following 
the  event  mentioned  there  was  drawn  up  a  new  fundamental  law, 
prepared  in  the  first  instance  largely  by  Napoleon  and  Sieyes,  put 
into  final  shape  by  two  commissions  composed  each  of  twenty-five 
members  of  the  old  Councils,  and  subsequently  ratified  by  popular 
vote.2  Amended  from  time  to  time  by  important  organic  enactments, 
the  Constitution  of  the  Year  VIII.  (December  13,  1799)  comprised 
the  fundamental  law  under  which  Napoleon  ruled  France  until  his 
abdication  in  1814. 

The  new  instrument,  in  ninety-five  articles,  was  much  briefer 
than  the  one  which  it  replaced,3  but  the  scheme  of  government  for 
which  it  made  provision  was  distinctly  more  complicated  than  that 
previously  in  operation.  In  the  main,  the  Napoleonic  constitution 
dealt  with  three  subjects:  the  electoral  system,  the  assemblies,  and 
the  executive.  Nominally  there  was  established  a  system  of  thorough- 

1  For  the  text  of  the  constitution  of  1795  see  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitu- 
tions, 78-118;  H61ie,  Les  Constitutions,  436-466;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  212-254. 
Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire  General,  498-500.    Cambridge  Modern  History, 
VIII.,  Chap.  13;  G.  Dodu,  Le  parlementarisme  et  les  parlementaires  sous  la  ReVolu- 
tion,  1789-1799;  origines  du  regime  representatif  en  France  (Paris,  1911);  Fisher, 
Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  Chap.  5. 

2  In  favor  of  the  new  constitution  there  were  cast  3,011,007  votes;  against  it, 
1,562. 

3  The  constitution  of  the  Year  III.,  containing  377  articles,  is  one  of  the  lengthiest 
documents  of  the  sort  on  record. 


294  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

going  manhood  suffrage.  But  the  conditions  under  which  electoral 
powers  were  to  be  exercised  rendered  the  plan  very  much  less  demo- 
cratic than  on  the  surface  it  appeared  to  be.  The  scheme  was  one 
devised  by  Sieyes  under  the  designation  of  "  lists  of  notables. "  In  each 
communal  district  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  inscribed 
on  the  civil  register  were  authorized  to  choose  one-tenth  of  their 
number  to  comprise  a  " communal  list."  Those  named  on  the  com- 
munal list  were  to  choose  in  their  department  a  tenth  of  their  number, 
who  formed  a  "departmental  list."  And,  similarly,  those  whose 
names  appeared  on  the  departmental  list  were  to  choose  a  tenth  of 
their  number,  who  formed  a  "national  list."  From  these  three 
lists  in  order  were  to  be  chosen,  largely  by  the  Senate,  the  public  of- 
ficials of  the  districts,  the  departments,  and  the  nation.  No  electoral 
scheme  has  ever  been  devised  which,  while  grounded  upon  the 
principle  of  manhood  suffrage,  more  effectually  withdraws  from  the 
people  the  actual  choice  of  public  officials,  local  as  well  as  national.1 

317.  Constitution  of  the  Year  VIII:  Organs  of  Government. — Of 
national  governmental  bodies  there  were  four.  One  was  the  Tribu- 
nate, consisting  of  100  members,  one-fifth  of  whom  were  renewable 
every  year.  The  function  of  the  Tribunate  was  to  discuss,  but  not 
necessarily  to  vote  upon,  legislative  measures.  A  second  was  the 
Corps  legislatif,  or  Legislative  Body,  of  300  members,  one-fifth  being 
renewed  annually.  To  this  assembly  was  committed  the  power  to 
vote  upon,  but  not  to  debate,  legislative  measures.  A  third  was  the 
Senate,  consisting  at  the  outset  of  sixty  life  members,  to  be  increased 
through  a  period  of  ten  years  to  eighty.  The  Senate  was  authorized 
to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  laws  and  to  choose  the  Tribunes, 
the  Legislators,  and  the  Consuls  from  the  national  list.  Its  own 
ranks  were  to  be  recruited  by  co-optation  from  triple  lists  of  candidates 
presented  by  the  Tribunate,  the  Legislative  Body,  and  the  First 
Consul.  Finally,  there  was  the  Council  of  State,  whose  organization 
was  left  purposely  indefinite.  Its  members  were  appointed  by  the 
First  Consul,  and  their  business  consisted  principally  in  the  prepara- 
tion and  advocacy  of  legislative  and  administrative  measures. 

If  under  this  scheme  the  legislative  organs  were  weak,  the  execu- 
tive authority  was  notably  strong.  Powers  of  an  executive  character 
were  vested  in  three  consuls,  appointed  by  the  Senate  for  ten  years 
and  indefinitely  eligible.  Upon  the  First  Consul  was  conferred  power 
to  promulgate  the  laws,  to  appoint  all  civil  and  military  officials, 
and  to  do  many  other  things  of  vital  importance.  Upon  the  second 

1  Under  this  system  the  primary  electors  numbered  about  5,000,000;  the  district 
notables,  500,000;  the  departmental  notables,  50,000;  and  the  national  list,  5,000. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  295 

and  third  consuls  was  bestowed  simply  a  "consultative  voice." 
Provision  was  made  for  a  ministry,  and  under  the  letter  of  the  con- 
stitution no  act  of  the  government  was  binding  unless  performed  on 
the  warrant  of  a  minister.  But  in  point  of  fact  the  principle  of  ir- 
responsibility permeated  the  Napoleonic  regime  from  the  First  Con- 
sul himself  to  the  lowliest  functionary.  The  conferring  upon  Napo- 
leon, in  1802,  of  the  consulship  for  life,  and  the  conversion  of  the 
Consulate,  in  1804,  into  the  Empire,  but  concentrated  yet  more 
fully  in  the  hands  of  a  single  man  the  whole  body  of  governmental 
authority  in  France.1 

III.  FROM  THE  RESTORATION  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  OF  1848 

318.  The  Constitutional  Charter,  1814. — May  3,  1814, — three  weeks 
after  Napoleon's  signature  of  the  Act  of  Abdication, — the  restored 
Bourbon  king,  Louis  XVIII.,  entered  Paris.  Already  the  Senate  had 
formulated  a  document,  commonly  known  as  the  "  Senatorial  Constitu- 
tion," wherein  was  embraced  a  scheme  for  a  liberalized  Bourbon  mon- 
archy.2 Neither  the  instrument  itself  nor  the  authorship  of  it  was 
acceptable  to  the  new  sovereign,  and  by  him  the  task  of  drafting  a 
constitution  was  given  over  to  a  commission  consisting  of  three  repre- 
sentatives of  the  crown,  nine  senators,  and  nine  members  of  the  Legis- 
lative Body.  The  task  was  accomplished  with  despatch.  June  4  the 
new  instrument,  under  the  name  of  the  Constitutional  Charter,  was 
adopted  by  the  two  chambers,  and  ten  days  later  it  was  put  in  operation. 
With  some  modification,  principally  in  1830,  it  remained  the  funda- 
mental law  of  France  until  the  revolution  of  1848. 

The  governmental  system  provided  for  in  the  Charter  was  in  a 
number  of  respects  more  liberal  than  that  which  had  prevailed  during 
the  dominance  of  Napoleon.  At  the  head  of  the  state  stood  the  king, 
inviolable  in  person,  in  whose  hands  were  gathered  the  powers  of  issuing 
ordinances,  making  appointments,  declaring  war,  concluding  treaties, 
commanding  the  armies,  and  initiating  all  measures  of  legislation.  But 
there  was  established  a  bicameral  legislature,  by  which  the  king's 
ministers  might  be  impeached,  and  without  whose  assent  no  law  might 
be  enacted  and  no  tax  levied.  The  upper  house,  or  Chamber  of  Peers, 
was  composed  of  a  variable  number  of  members  named  by  the  crown 

1  The  text  of  the  constitution  of  the  Year  VIII.  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les 
Constitutions,  118-129;  H6iie,  Les  Constitutions,  577-585;  and  Anderson,  Consti- 
tutions, 270-281.    Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire  G6ne"ral,  I.,  50x5-505.    Cam- 
bridge Modern  History,  IX.,  Chap.  i. 

2  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  179-182;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  446- 
450;  Block,  Dictionnaire  G6ne"ral,  I.,  505-506. 


296  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

in  heredity  or  for  life.1  The  lower,  or  Chamber  of  Deputies,  consisted 
of  representatives  elected  in  the  departments  for  a  term  of  five  years, 
one-fifth  retiring  annually.2  Provision  was  made  for  the  annual  as- 
sembling of  the  chambers;  and  although  the  proposing  of  laws  was 
vested  exclusively  in  the  crown,  it  was  stipulated  that  either  house 
might  petition  the  king  to  introduce  a  measure  relating  to  any  specific 
subject.  The  Charter  contained  a  comprehensive  enumeration  and 
guarantee  of  the  civil  rights  of  French  citizens.3 

319.  The  Electoral  System.  The  Charter  prescribed  the  qualifica- 
tions required  of  voters  and  of  deputies,  but  did  not  define  the  manner  in 
which  deputies  should  be  chosen.  The  lack  was  supplied  by  an  election 
law  enacted  February  5,  1817.  The  system  established  was  that  of 
scrutin  de  liste.  Under  it  the  electors — men  of  a  minimum  age  of  thirty 
who  paid  each  year  a  direct  tax  of  at  least  three  hundred  francs — were 
required  to  assemble  in  the  principal  town  of  the  department  and  there 
choose  the  full  quota  of  deputies  to  which  the  department  was  entitled. 
The  system  proved  of  distinct  advantage  to  the  liberal  elements,  whose 
strength  lay  largely  in  the  towns,  and  in  1820  when  the  conservative 
forces  procured  control  and  inaugurated  a  general  reaction  a  measure  was 
adopted,  though  only  after  heated  debate,  by  which  the  arrangement 
was  completely  altered.  The  membership  of  the  Chamber  was  increased 
from  258  to  430  and  for  the  principle  of  scrutin  de  liste  was  substituted 
that  of  scrutin  d'arrondissement.  Each  arrondissement  became  a  single- 
member  district  and  the  electors  were  permitted  to  vote  for  one  deputy 
only.  In  this  manner  258  of  the  members  were  chosen.  The  remaining 
172  were  elected  at  the  chief  departmental  towns  by  the  voters  of  the 
department  who  paid  the  most  taxes,  an  arrangment  under  which  some 
twelve  thousand  of  the  wealthier  electors  became  possessed  of  a  double 
vote.  Voting  was  by  ballot,  but  the  elector  was  required  to  write  out 
his  ballot  in  the  presence  of  an  appointee  of  the  government  and  to 
place  it  in  his  hands  unfolded.4 

1  By  law  of  December  29, 1831,  it  was  stipulated  that  only  life  peers  might  there- 
after be  appointed,  and  the  king  was  required  to  take  all  appointees  from  a  pre- 
scribed list  of  dignitaries.    Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  231-232. 

2  A  law  of  June  9,  1824,  stipulated  that  thereafter  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
should  be  elected  integrally  for  a  period  of  seven  years.    Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les 
Constitutions,  211. 

3  The  text  of  the  Charter  of  1814  may  be  found  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Con- 
stitutions, I.,  183-190;  Helie,  Les  Constitutions,  884-800;  and,  in  English  transla- 
tion, in  Anderson,  Constitutions,  457-465,  and  University  of  Pennsylvania  Trans- 
lations and  Reprints,  I.,  No.  3.    Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire  General,  I., 
506-508.    Cambridge  Modern  History,  IX.,  Chap.  18. 

4  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  206-209;  H61ie,  Les  Constitutions, 
934-936. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  297 

320.  Liberalizing  Changes  in  1830-1831. — Upon  the  enforced  abdica- 
tion of  Charles  X.  in  1830  a  parliamentary  commission  prepared  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Charter,  which,  being  adopted,  was  imposed  upon  the  new 
sovereign,  Louis  Philippe,  and  was  continued  in  operation  through  the 
period  of  the  Orleanist  monarchy.  The  preamble  of  the  original  docu- 
ment, in  which  language  had  been  employed  which  made  it  appear  that 
the  Charter  was  a  grant  from  the  crown ,  was  stricken  out.  Suspension  of 
the  laws  by  the  sovereign  was  expressly  forbidden.  Each  chamber  was 
given  the  right  to  initiate  legislation,  the  responsibility  of  the  ministers 
to  the  chambers  was  proclaimed,  and  the  sessions  of  the  Peers,  hitherto 
secret,  were  made  public.  The  integral  renewal  of  the  Deputies,  es- 
tablished in  1824,  was  continued,  but  the  term  of  membership  was 
restored  to  five  years.  The  minimum  age  of  electors  was  reduced  from 
thirty  to  twenty-five  years,  and  of  deputies  from  forty  to  thirty.  Sub- 
sequently, April  19,  1831,  a  law  was  passed  whereby  the  suffrage — so 
restricted  at  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  regime  that  in  a  population  of 
29,000,000  there  had  been,  in  1814,  not  100,000  voters — was  appreciably 
broadened.  The  direct  tax  qualification  of  three  hundred  francs  was 
reduced  to  one  of  two  hundred,  and,  for  certain  professional  classes, 
of  one  hundred.  By  this  modification  the  number  of  voters  was  doubled, 
though  the  proportion  of  the  enfranchised  was  still  but  one  in  one  hun- 
dred fifty  of  the  total  population,  and  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  regard  the 
government  of  the  Orleanist  period  as  in  effect  more  democratic  than 
that  by  which  it  was  preceded.  At  the  most,  it  was  a  government  by 
and  for  the  well-to-do  middle  class.1 

IV.  THE  SECOND  REPUBLIC  AND  THE  SECOND  EMPIRE 

321.  The  Republican  Constitution  of  1848. — With  the  overthrow 
of  the  Orleanist  monarchy,  in  consequence  of  the  uprising  of  February  24, 
1848,  France  entered  upon  a  period  of  aggravated  political  unsettlement. 
Through  upwards  of  five  years  the  nation  experimented  once  more  with 
republicanism,  only  at  the  end  of  that  period  to  emerge  a  monarchy, 
an  empire,  and  the  dominion  of  a  Bonaparte.  By  the  provisional  govern- 
ment which  sprang  from  the  revolution  a  republic  was  proclaimed 
tentatively  and  the  nation  was  called  upon  to  elect,  under  a  system  of 
direct  manhood  suffrage,  an  assembly  to  frame  a  constitution.  The 

1  For  the  act  of  the  Chambers  relative  to  the  modification  of  the  Constitutional 
Charter  and  to  the  accession  of  Louis  Philippe,  see  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Con- 
stitutions, 213-218;  H61ie,  Les  Constitutions,  987-992;  and  Anderson,  Constitutions, 
S07-5i3-  The  electoral  law  of  1831  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  219-230.  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  X.,  Chap.  15;  G.  Weill,  La  France  sous  la  monarchic  constitution- 
nelle,  1814-1848  (new  ed.,  Paris,  1912). 


298  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

elections — the  first  of  their  kind  in  the  history  of  France — were  held 
April  23,  1848,  and  the  National  Constituent  Assembly,  consisting  of 
nine  hundred  members,  eight  hundred  of  whom  were  moderate  republi- 
cans, met  May  4  in  Paris.  During  the  summer  the  draft  of  a  constitution 
prepared  by  a  committee  of  eighteen,  was  duly  debated,  and  November  4 
it  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  739  to  30. 

The  Constitution  of  1848  declared  the  Republic  to  be  perpetual 
and  the  people  to  be  sovereign.  It  asserted,  furthermore,  that  the 
separation  of  powers  is  the  first  condition  of  a  free  government.  In 
respect  to  the  organs  of  government  it  provided,  in  the  first  place,  for 
a  legislative  assembly  consisting  of  a  single  chamber  of  750  members1 
chosen  integrally  for  three  years,  directly  by  secret  ballot  on  the  principle 
of  departmental  scrutin  de  liste,  and  by  electors  whose  only  necessary 
qualifications  were  those  of  age  (twenty-one  years)  and  of  non-impair- 
ment of  civil  rights.2  Executive  powers  were  vested  in  a  president  of 
the  Republic,  elected  for  a  term  of  four  years  by  direct  and  secret 
ballot,  and  by  absolute  majority  of  all  votes  cast  in  France  and  Algeria. 
Under  stipulated  conditions,  e.  g.,  if  no  candidate  should  receive  an 
absolute  majority  and  at  the  same  time  a  total  of  at  least  two  mil- 
lion votes,  the  president  was  required  to  be  chosen  by  the  Assembly 
from  the  five  candidates  who  had  polled  the  largest  votes.  Save 
after  a  four-year  interval,  the  president  was  ineligible  for  re-election. 
Upon  him  were  bestowed  large  powers,  including  those  of  propos- 
ing laws,  negotiating  and  ratifying  treaties  with  the  consent  of  the 
Assembly,  appointing  and  dismissing  ministers  and  other  civil  and 
military  officers,  and  disposing  of  the  armed  forces.  With  respect  to 
the  functions  and  powers  of  the  ministers  the  constitution  was  not 
explicit,  and  whether  the  instrument  might  legitimately  be  inter- 
preted to  make  provision  for  a  parliamentary  system  of  government 
was  one  of  the  standing  issues  throughout  the  days  of  its  duration.3 

322.  From  Republic  to  Empire. — December  10, 1848,  Louis  Napoleon, 
nephew  of  the  first  Napoleon,  was  chosen  president  by  an  overwhelming 

1  Including  representatives  of  Algeria  and  the  colonies. 

8  Electoral  law  of  March  15, 1849.  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  247- 
265. 

3  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  308-312.  The  text  of  the  Constitution  of  1848  is 
in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  232-246;  Helie,  Les  Constitutions,  1102- 
1113;  and  Anderson,  Constitutions,  522-537.  Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire 
General,  I.,  510-513.  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XL,  Chap.  5;  V.  Pierre,  His- 
toire  de  la  re"publique  de  1848,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1873-1878);  P.  de  la  Gorce,  Histoire 
de  la  deuxieme  republique  franchise,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1887);  E.  Spuller,  Histoire 
parlementaire  de  la  deuxieme  republique  (Paris,  1893);  Fisher,  Republican  Tradi- 
tion in  Europe,  Chap.  8. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  299 

vote,  and  ten  days  later  he  assumed  office.  In  May,  1849,  an  Assembly 
was  elected,  two-thirds  of  whose  members  were  thoroughgoing  mon- 
archists; so  that,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  both  the  president  and  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  were,  by  reason  of  their  very  being,  enemies 
of  the  constitution  under  which  they  had  been  elected.1  The  new  order, 
furthermore,  failed  completely  to  strike  root  throughout  the  nation  at 
large.  In  this  state  of  things  the  collapse  of  the  Republic  was  but  a 
question  of  time.  By  an  electoral  law  of  May  31,  1850,  requiring  of  the 
elector  a  fixed  residence  of  three  years  instead  of  six  months,  the  suffrage 
arrangements  of  1849  were  subverted  and  the  electorate  was  reduced 
by  three  millions,  or  virtually  one- third.2  December  2,  1851,  occurred 
a  carefully  planned  coup  d'etat,  on  which  occasion  the  Assembly  was  dis- 
solved, the  franchise  law  of  1849  was  restored,  and  the  people,  gathered 
in  primary  assemblies,  were  called  upon  to  intrust  to  the  President 
power  to  revise  the  national  constitution.3  December  20,  by  a  vote 
of  7,439,216  to  640,737,  the  people  complied.  Thereafter,  though  con- 
tinuing officially  through  another  year,  the  Republic  was  in  reality  dead. 
November  7,  1852,  the  veil  was  thrown  off.  A  senatus-consulte  decreed 
a  re-establishment  of  the  Empire,4  and  by  a  plebiscite  of  eleven  days 
later  the  people,  by  a  vote  of  7,824,189  to  253,145,  sanctioned  what  had 
been  done.  December  2,  Napoleon  III.  was  proclaimed  Emperor  of  the 
French. 

323.  The  Imperial  Constitution,  1862. — Meanwhile,  March  29, 1852, 
there  had  been  put  in  operation  a  constitution,5  nominally  republican,  but 
in  reality  strongly  resembling  that  in  force  during  the  later  years  of 
Napoleon  I.  The  substitution,  later  in  the  year,  of  an  emperor  for  a 
president  upon  whom  had  been  conferred  a  ten-year  term  was  but  a 
matter  of  detail.  A  senatus-consvlte  of  December  25,  made  all  of  the 
necessary  adjustments,  and  the  constitution  of  1852,  with  occasional 
modifications,  remained  the  fundamental  law  of  France  until  the 
collapse  of  the  Empire  in  1870.  Upon  the  emperor  were  conferred 
very  extended  powers.  His  control  of  the  administrative  system  was 
made  practically  absolute.  He  commanded  the  army  and  navy,  de- 
cided upon  war  and  peace,  concluded  treaties,  and  granted  pardons. 
He  alone  possessed  the  power  of  initiating  legislation  and  of  promulgating 

1  Hazen,  Europe  since  1815,  201. 

2  The  text  of  this  measure  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  265-268, 
and  Helie,  Les  Constitutions,  1149-1150.     H.  LaferriSre,  La  loi  electorate  du  31 
mai  1850  (Paris,  1910). 

3  Anderson,  Constitutions,  538-543. 

4  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  290-292;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  560- 
561. 

5  Drawn  up  by  a  commission  of  five,  under  date  of  January  14,  1852. 


300  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  laws.  To  him  alone  were  all  ministers  responsible,  and  of  such 
parliamentarism  as  had  existed  formerly  there  remained  not  a  vestige. 
Of  legislative  chambers  there  were  two:  a  Corps  legislatifoi  251  members 
elected  by  direct  manhood  suffrage  every  six  years,  and  a  Senate  com- 
posed of  cardinals,  admirals,  and  other  ex-officio  members,  and  of  a 
variable  number  of  members  appointed  for  life  by  the  emperor.  The 
powers  of  the  Senate,  exercised  invariably  in  close  conjunction  with 
the  head  of  the  state,  were  of  some  importance,  but  those  of  the  popular 
chamber  were  so  restricted  that  the  liberal  arrangements  which  existed 
respecting  the  suffrage  afforded  but  the  appearance,  not  the  reality, 
of  democracy.1 

324.  Constitutional  Alterations,  1869-1870. — Throughout  upwards 
of  two  decades  the  illusion  of  popular  government  was  maintained  as 
well  as  might  be.  The  country  was  prosperous  and  the  government, 
if  illiberal,  was  on  the  whole  enlightened.  Discontent,  none  the  less, 
was  not  infrequently  in  evidence,  and  during  especially  the  second 
half  of  the  reign  the  Emperor  found  it  expedient  more  than  once  to 
make  some  concession  to  public  sentiment.  In  the  later  sixties  he  was 
compelled  to  moderate  the  laws  which  dealt  with  the  press  and  with 
political  meetings,  and  in  1869-1870  he  was  brought  to  the  point  of 
approving  a  series  of  measures  which  gave  promise  of  altering  in  an 
important  manner  the  entire  governmental  system.  One  was  a  senatus- 
consulte  of  September  8,  1869,  whereby  the  sittings  of  the  Senate  were 
made  public,  the  Legislative  Body  was  given  the  right  to  elect  all  of 
its  own  officials,  and  the  parliamentary  system  was  nominally  re- 
established.2 By  reason  of  the  fact,  however,  that  ministers  were  not 
permitted  to  be  members  of  either  the  Legislative  Body  or  the  Senate, 
and  that  they  were  declared  still  to  be  responsible  to  the  crown,  the 
effects  of  the  last-mentioned  feature  of  the  reform  were  inconsiderable. 
By  a  senatus-consulte  of  April  20,  1870,  (approved  by  a  plebiscite  of 
May  8  following)  there  were  adopted  still  more  important  constitutional 
changes.  In  the  first  place,  the  Senate,  which  hitherto  had  been  virtually 
an  Imperial  council,  was  erected  into  a  legislative  chamber  co-ordinate 
with  the  Legislative  Body,  and  upon  both  houses  was  conferred  the  right 
of  initiating  legislation.  In  the  second  place,  the  provision  that  the 
ministers  should  be  dependent  solely  upon  the  emperor  was  stricken  from 
the  constitution,  thus  clearing  the  way  for  a  more  effective  realization 

1  The  text  of  the  constitution  of  1852  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions, 
274-280;  Helie,  Les  Constitutions,  1167-1171;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  543-549. 
Summary  in  Block,  Dictionnaire  Gen6ral,  I.,  513-515.   Cambridge  Modem  History, 
XI.,  Chaps.  5,  10. 

2  Text  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  307-308;  Helie,  Les  Constitu- 
tions, 1314-1315;  and  Anderson,  Constitutions,  579-580. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  301 

of  the  parliamentary  system  of  government.  Finally,  it  was  stipulated 
that  the  constitution  should  thereafter  be  modified  only  with  the  express 
approval  of  the  people.1  These  reforms,  however,  were  belated.  They 
came  only  after  the  popularity  of  the  Emperor  had  been  strained  to  the 
breaking  point,  and  by  reason  of  the  almost  immediate  coming  on  of  the 
war  with  Prussia  there  was  scant  opportunity  for  the  testing  of  their 
efficacy. 

V.  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  THIRD  REPUBLIC 

325.  The  National  Assembly. — The  present  French  Republic  was 
instituted  under  circumstances  which  gave  promise  of  even  less  stabil- 
ity than  had  been  exhibited  by  its  predecessors  of  1793  and  i848.2 
Proclaimed  hi  the  dismal  days  following  the  disaster  at  Sedan,  it  owed 
its  existence,  at  the  outset,  to  the  fact  that,  with  the  capture  of  Napo- 
leon III.  by  the  Prussians  and  the  utter  collapse  of  the  Empire,  there 
had  arisen,  as  Thiers  put  it,  "a  vacancy  of  power."  The  proclamation 
was  issued  September  4,  1870,  when  the  war  with  Prussia  had  been 
in  progress  but  seven  weeks.3  During  the  remaining  five  months  of  the 
contest  the  sovereign  authority  of  France  was  exercised  by  a  Pro- 
visional Government  of  National  Defense,  with  General  Trochu  at  its 
head,  devised  in  haste  to  meet  the  emergency  by  Gambetta,  Favre, 
Ferry,  and  other  former  members  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies.  Upon 
the  capitulation  of  Paris,  January  28,  1871,  elections  were  ordered  for 
a  national  assembly,  the  function  of  which  was  to  decide  whether 
the  war  should  be  prolonged  and  what  terms  of  peace  should  be  ac- 
cepted at  the  hands  of  the  victorious  Germans.  There  was  no  time 
in  which  to  frame  a  new  electoral  system.  Consequently  the  elec- 

1  The  text  of  the  measure  of  April  20,  1870,  is  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Con- 
stitutions, 308-314;  He"lie,  Les  Constitutions,  1315-1327;  and  Anderson,  Constitu- 
tions, 581-586.    Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chap.  17;  H.  Berton,  L'e" volu- 
tion constitutionnelle  du  second  empire  (Paris,  1900).    An  important  larger  work  is 
P.  de  la  Gorce,  Histoire  du  second  empire,  7  vols.  (Paris,  1894-1905). 

2  The  best  account  of  the  beginnings  of  the  Third  Republic  is  that  in  G.  Hano- 
taux,  Histoire  de  la  France  contemporaine,  4  vols.  (Paris,  1903-1909),  I.    There  is 
an  English  translation  of  this  important  work  by  J.  C.  Tarver.    A  recent  book  of 
value  is  A.  Bertrand,  Les  origines  de  la  troisieme  re"publique,  1871-1876  (Paris, 
1911).    Mention  may  be  made  also  of  E.  Zevort,  Histoire  de  la  troisieme  re"- 
publique,  4  vols.  (Paris,  1896-1901),  I.;  C.  Duret,  Histoire  de  France  de  1870  a  1873 
(Paris,  1901);  A.  Callet,  Les  origines  de  la  troisieme  re"publique  (Paris,  1889); 
F.  Littre",  L'e"tablissement  de  la  troisifcme  re"publique  (Paris,  1880);  L.  E.  Benoit, 
Histoire  de  quinze  ans,  1870-1885  (Paris,  1886);  F.  T.  Marzials,  Leon  Gambetta 
(London,  1890);  and  P.  B.  Ghensi,  Gambetta:  Life  and  Letters  (New  York,  1910). 
There  is  an  interesting  interpretation  in  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe, 
Chap.  ii. 

3Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  cxvi. 


302  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

toral  procedure  of  the  Second  Republic,  as  prescribed  by  the  law  of 
March  15,  1849,  was  revived,1  and  by  manhood  suffrage  there  was 
chosen,  February  8,  an  assembly  of  758  members,  representative  of 
both  France  and  the  colonies.  Meeting  at  Bordeaux,  February  12, 
this  body,  by  unanimous  vote,  conferred  upon  the  historian  and  parlia- 
mentarian Thiers  the  title  of  "  Chief  of  the  Executive  Power,"  without 
fixed  term,  voted  almost  solidly  for  a  cessation  of  hostilities,  and 
authorized  Thiers  to  proceed  with  an  immediate  negotiation  of  peace. 

326.  The  Problem  of  a  Permanent  Government. — Pending  a  diplo-. 
matic  adjustment,  the  Assembly  was  disposed  to  defer  the  establish- 
ment of  a  permanent  governmental  system.    But  the  problem  could 
not  long  be  kept  in  the  background.    There  were  several  possible 
solutions.    A  party  of  Legitimists,  i.  e.,  adherents  of  the  old  Bourbon 
monarchy,  was  resolved  upon  the  establishment  of  a  kingdom  under 
the  Count  of  Chambord,  grandson  of  the  Charles  X.  who  had  been 
deposed  at  the  revolution  of  1830.    Similarly,  a  party  of  Orleanists 
was  insistent  upon  a  restoration  of  the  house  of  Orleans,  overthrown 
in  1848,  in  the  person  of  the  Count  of  Paris,  a  grandson  of  the  citizen- 
king  Louis  Philippe.    A  smaller  group  of  those  who,  despite  the  dis- 
credit which  the  house  of  Bonaparte  had  suffered  in  the  war,  remained 
loyal  to  the  Napoleonic  tradition,  was  committed  to  a  revival  of  the 
prostrate  empire  of  the  captive  Napoleon  III.    Finally,  in  Paris  and 
some  portions  of  the  outlying  country  there  was  uncompromising 
demand  for  the  definite  establishment  of  a  republic.2   In  the  Assembly 
the  monarchists  outnumbered  the  republicans  five  to  two,  and,  al- 
though the  members  had  been  chosen  primarily  for  their  opinions 
relative  to  peace  rather  than  to  constitutional  forms,  the  proportion 
throughout  the  nation  was  probably  about  the  same.    The  republican 
outlook,  however,  was  vastly  improved  by  the  fact  that  the  mon- 
archists, having  nothing  in  common  save  opposition  to  republicanism, 
were  hopelessly  disagreed  among  themselves.3 

327.  The  Rivet  Law,  1871. — As,  from  the  drift  of  its  proceedings, 
the  royalist  character  of  the  Assembly  began  to  stand  out  in  unmis- 
takable relief,  there  arose  from  republican  quarters  vigorous  opposi- 
tion to  the  prolonged  existence  of  the  body.    Even  before  the  signing 
of  the  Peace  of  Frankfort,  May  10,  1871,  there  occurred  a  clash  be- 

1  Most  of  the  disqualifications  for  voting  which  were  enumerated  in  the  law  of 
1849  were  declared  inapplicable  in  the  present  election. 

2  G.  Weill,  Histoire  du  parti  republicain  en  France  de  1814  a  1870  (Paris,  1900). 

3  Of  pure  Legitimists  there  were  in  the  Assembly  about  150;  of  Bonapartists,  not 
over  30;  of  Republicans,  about  250.    The  remaining  members  were  Orleanists  or 
men  of  indecisive  inclination.    At  no  time  was  the  full  membership  of  the  Assembly 
in  attendance. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  303 

tween  the  Assembly  and  the  radical  Parisian  populace,  the  upshot  of 
which  was  the  bloody  war  of  the  Commune  of  April-May,  iSyi.1 
The  communards  fought  fundamentally  against  state  centralization, 
whether  or  not  involving  a  revival  of  monarchy.  The  fate  of  repub- 
licanism was  not  in  any  real  measure  bound  up  with  their  cause,  so 
that  after  the  movement  had  been  suppressed,  with  startling  ruthless- 
ness,  by  the  Government,  the  political  future  of  the  nation  remained 
no  less  hi  doubt  than  previously  it  had  been.  Thiers  continued  at 
the  post  of  Chief  of  the  Executive,  and  the  Assembly,  clothed  by  its 
own  assumption  with  powers  immeasurably  in  excess  of  those  it  had 
been  elected  to  exercise,  and  limited  by  no  fixed  term,  gave  not  the 
slightest  indication  of  a  purpose  to  terminate  its  career.  Rather,  the 
body  proceeded,  August  31,  1871,  to  pass,  by  a  vote  of  491  to  94,  the 
Rivet  law,  whereby  the  existing  regime  was  to  be  perpetuated  indef- 
initely.2 By  this  measure  unrestricted  sovereignty,  involving  the 
exercise  of  both  constituent  and  legislative  powers,  was  declared  by 
the  Assembly  to  be  vested  in  itself.  Upon  the  Chief  of  the  Executive 
was  conferred  the  title  of  President  of  the  French  Republic;  and  it  was 
stipulated  that  this  official  should  thereafter  be  responsible  to  the 
Assembly,  and  presumably  removable  by  it.  A  quasi-republic,  with  a 
crude  parliamentary  system  of  government,  thereafter  existed  de  facto; 
but  it  had  as  yet  absolutely  no  constitutional  basis. 

328.  Failure  of  the  Monarchist  Programmes. —  This  anomalous 
condition  of  things  lasted  many  months,  during  the  course  of  which 
Thiers  and  the  Assembly  served  the  nation  admirably  through  the 
promotion  of  its  recovery  from  the  ravages  of  war.  More  and  more 
Thiers,  who  had  begun  as  a  constitutional  monarchist,  came  to  be- 
lieve in  republicanism  as  the  style  of  government  which  would  divide 
the  French  people  least,  and  late  in  1872  he  put  himself  unqualifiedly 
among  the  adherents  of  the  republican  programme.  Thereupon  the 
monarchists,  united  for  the  moment  in  the  conviction  that  for  the 
good  of  their  several  causes  Thiers  must  be  deposed  from  his  position 
of  influence,  brought  about  in  the  Assembly  a  majority  vote  in  opposi- 
tion to  him,  and  so  induced  his  resignation,  May  24,  i873.3  The 
opponents  of  republicanism  now  felt  that  the  hour  had  come  for  the 
termination  of  a  governmental  regime  which  had  by  them  been  re- 

1  In  March  the  Assembly  had  transferred  its  sittings  from  Bordeaux  to  Versailles. 

2  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  315-316;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  604- 
606. 

3  Anderson,  Constitutions,  622-627;  A.  LefSvre  Pontalis,  L* Assembled  nationale  et 
M.  Thiers,  in  Le  Correspondent,  Feb.  10,  1879;  A.  Thiers,  Notes  et  Souvenirs  de  1870 
a  1873  (Paris,  1903) ;  J.  Simon,  Le  gouvernement  de  M.  Thiers  (Paris,  1878);  E.  de 
Marcere,  L'AssemblSe  nationale  de  1871  (Paris,  1904). 


304  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

garded  all  the  while  as  purely  provisional.  The  monarchist  Marshal 
MacMahon  was  made  President,  a  coalition  ministry  of  monarchists 
under  the  Orleanist  Duke  of  Broglie  was  formed,  and  republicanism 
in  press  and  politics  was  put  under  the  ban.  Between  the  Legitimists 
and  the  Orleanists  there  was  worked  out  an  ingenious  compromise 
whereby  the  Bourbon  Count  of  Chambord  was  to  be  made  king  under 
the  title  of  Henry  V.  and,  he  having  no  heirs,  the  Orleanist  Count  of 
Paris  was  to  be  recognized  as  his  successor.  The  whole  project  was 
brought  to  naught,  however,  by  the  persistent  refusal  of  the  Count  of 
Chambord  to  give  up  the  white  flag,  which  for  centuries  had  been  the 
standard  of  the  Bourbon  house.  The  Orleanists  held  out  for  the  tri- 
color; and  thus,  on  what  would  appear  to  most  people  a  question  of 
distinctly  minor  consequence,  the  survival  of  the  Republic  was  for 
the  time  determined.1 

In  the  hope  that  eventually  they  might  gain  sufficient  strength  to 
place  their  candidate  on  the  throne  without  the  co-operation  of  the 
Legitimists,  the  Orleanists  joined  with  the  Bonapartists  and  the  repub- 
licans, November  20,  1873,  m  voting  to  fix  the  term  of  President 
MacMahon  definitely  at  seven  years.2  By  the  Orleanists  it  was  as- 
sumed that  if  within  that  period  an  opportunity  should  be  presented 
for  the  establishment  of  the  Count  of  Paris  upon  the  throne,  the  Pres- 
ident would  clear  the  way  by  retiring.  The  opportunity,  however, 
never  came,  and  the  septennial  period  for  the  French  presidency, 
established  thus  by  monarchists  in  their  own  interest,  was  destined  to 
pass  into  the  permanent  mechanism  of  a  republican  state. 

VI.  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  TO-DAY 

329.  Circumstances  of  Formation. — Meanwhile  the  way  was  open- 
ing for  France  to  acquire  what  for  some  years  she  had  lacked  com- 
pletely, i.  e.,  a  constitution.  May  19,  1873,  the  minister  Dufaure,  in 
behalf  of  the  Government,  laid  before  the  Assembly  projets  of  two 
organic  measures,  both  of  which,  in  slightly  amended  form,  passed  in 
1875  mto  tne  permanent  constitution  of  the  Republic.  May  24  oc- 
curred the  retirement  of  President  Thiers,  and  likewise  that  of  Dufaure, 
but  in  the  Assembly,  the  two  proposed  measures  were  none  the  less 
referred  to  a  commission  of  thirty.  Consideration  in  committee  was 
sluggish,  and  the  Assembly  itself  was  not  readily  roused  to  action. 
During  the  twelvemonth  that  followed  several  projets  were  brought 
forward,  and  there  was  desultory  discussion,  but  no  progress.  In  the 

1  Marquis  de  Castallane,  Le  dernier  essai  de  restauration  monarchique  de  1873, 
in  Nouvelle  Revue,  Nov.  i,  1895. 

2Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  319;  Anderson,  Constitutions,  630. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  305 

summer  of  1874  a  new  commission  of  thirty  was  elected  and  to  it  was 
intrusted  the  task  of  studying  and  reporting  upon  all  of  the  numerous 
constitutional  laws  that  had  been  suggested.  The  majority  of  this 
commission,  monarchist  by  inclination,  contented  itself  with  pro- 
posing, in  January,  1875,  a  ^aw  providing  simply  for  the  continuance  of 
the  existing  "septennate."  Only  after  earnest  effort,  and  by  the 
narrow  vote  of  353  to  352,  were  the  republican  forces  in  the  Assembly 
able  to  carry  an  amendment,  proposed  by  the  deputy  Wallon,  in 
which  was  made  definite  provision  for  the  election  of  the  President 
of  the  Republic,  and  therefore,  by  reasonable  inference,  for  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Republic  itself.1 

Before  the  year  1875  was  far  advanced  the  Assembly  threw  off  its 
lethargy  and  for  the  first  time  in  its  history  addressed  itself  system- 
atically to  the  drafting  of  a  national  constitution.  To  this  course 
it  was  impelled  by  the  propaganda  of  Gambetta  and  other  republican 
leaders,  by  fear  on  the  part  of  the  Legitimists  and  Orleanists  that 
the  existing  inchoate  situation  would  lead  to  a  Bonapartist  revival, 
and  by  a  new  modus  operandi  which  was  cleverly  arranged  between 
the  republicans  and  the  Orleanists.  Convinced  that  an  Orleanist 
monarchy  was,  at  least  for  a  time,  an  impossibility,  and  preferring 
a  republic  to  any  alternative  which  had  been  suggested,  the  Orleanist 
members  of  the  Assembly  gave  their  support  in  sufficient  numbers  to 
the  programme  of  the  republicans  to  render  it  at  last  possible  to  work 
out  for  the  nation  a  conservatively  republican  constitutional  system. 

330.  Texts  and  General  Nature. — Of  the  organic  laws  which  com- 
prise the  constitution  of  France  to-day  five  which  date  from  1875 
are  of  principal  importance:  (i)  that  of  February  24,  on  the  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Senate;  (2)  that  of  February  25, — the  most  important 
of  all, — on  the  Organization  of  the  Public  Powers;  (3)  that  of  July  16, 
on  the  Relations  of  the  Public  Powers;  (4)  that  of  August  3,  on  the 
Election  of  Senators;  and  (5)  that  of  November  30,  on  the  Election 
of  Deputies.  Collectively,  these  measures  are  sometimes  referred  to 
as  the  "constitution  of  1875."  Other  and  later  constitutional  en- 
actments of  considerable  importance  include  (i)  the  law  of  July  22, 
1879,  relating  to  the  seat  of  the  Executive  Power  and  of  the  two 
Chambers  at  Paris;  (2)  the  law  of  December  9,  1884,  amending  ex- 
isting organic  laws  on  the  Organization  of  the  Senate  and  the  Elec- 
tion of  Senators;  and  (3)  laws  of  June  16,  1885,  and  February  13  and 
July  17,  1889,  respecting  the  Election  of  Deputies.2 

1  Anderson,  Constitutions,  633. 

2  The  original  texts  of  these  documents  are  printed  in  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les 
Constitutions,  319-350,  and  H61ie,  Les  Constitutions,  1348-1456.    For  English 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Springing  from  the  peculiar  conditions  which  have  been  described, 
the  handiwork  of  a  body  in  which  only  a  minority  felt  the  slightest 
degree  of  enthusiasm  for  it,  the  constitution  of  the  French  Republic 
is  essentially  unlike  any  instrument  of  government  with  which  the 
English-speaking  world  is  familiar.  It  differs  from  the  British  in 
having  been  put  almost  wholly  into  written  form.  It  differs  from 
the  American  in  that  it  consists,  not  of  a  single  document,  but  of 
many,  and  in  that  it  emanated,  not  from  a  great  constituent  assembly, 
charged  with  the  specific  task  of  formulating  a  governmental  system, 
but  from  a  law-making  body  which  in  truth  had  never  been  formally 
intrusted  by  the  nation  with  even  the  powers  of  legislation  proper, 
and  had  merely  arrogated  to  itself  those  functions  of  constitution- 
framing  which  it  chose  to  exercise.1  It  consists  simply  of  organic 
laws,  enacted  chiefly  by  the  provisional  Assembly  of  1871-1875,  but 
amended  and  amplified  to  some  extent  by  the  national  parliament 
in  subsequent  years.  Unlike  the  majority  of  constitutions  that  went 
before  it  in  France,  it  is  not  orderly  in  its  arrangement  or  comprehen- 
sive in  its  contents.  It  is  devoid  of  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  bill 
of  rights,2  and  concerning  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  it  has  nothing 
to  say.  Even  in  respect  to  many  essential  aspects  of  governmental 
organization  and  practice  it  is  mute.  It  contains  no  provision  re- 
specting annual  budgets,  and  it  leaves  untouched  the  entire  field  of 
the  judiciary.  The  instrument  lays  down  only  certain  broad  lines  of 
organization;  the  rest  it  leaves  to  be  supplied  through  the  channels 
of  ordinary  legislation. 

versions  see  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  286-319;  C.  F.  A.  Currier,  Constitu- 
tional and  Organic  Laws  of  France,  in  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science,  March,  1893,  supplement;  and  Anderson,  Constitutions,  633- 
640.  Albert  Due  de  Broglie,  Histoire  et  Politique:  fitude  sur  la  constitution  de 
1875  (Paris,  1897);  R.  Saleilles,  The  Development  of  the  Present  Constitution  of 
France,  in  Annals  of  Amer.  Academy,  July,  1895. 

1  Among  French  writers  upon  constitutional  law  there  has  been  no  small  amount 
of  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  National  Assembly  is  to  be  regarded  as 
having  been  entitled  to  the  exercise  of  constituent  powers.    For  a  brief  affirmative 
argument  see  Duguit  et  Monnier,  Les  Constitutions,  cxvii.     Cf.  Dicey,  Law  of, 
the  Constitution,  121,  note. 

2  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  many  authorities  agree  with  Professor 
Duguit  in  his  contention  that  although  the  individual  rights  enumerated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Rights  of  1789  are  passed  without  mention  in  the  constitutional  laws 
of  1875,  they  are  to  be  considered  as  lying  at  the  basis  of  the  French  governmental 
system  to-day.    Any  measure  enacted  by  the  national  parliament  in  contravention 
of  them,  says  Professor  Duguit,  would  be  unconstitutional.    They  are  not  mere 
dogmas  or  theories,  but  rather  positive  laws,  binding  upon  not  only  the  legislative 
chambers  but  upon  the  constituent  National  Assembly.    Traite*  de  droit  constitu- 
tionnel  (Paris,  1911),  II.,  13. 


FRENCH  CONSTITUTIONS  SINCE  1789  307 

331.  Amendment. — It  was  the  desire  of  all  parties  in  1875  that  the 
constitutional  laws  should  be  easy  of  amendment,  and  indeed  most 
men  of  the  time  expected  the  governmental  system  which  was  being 
established  to  undergo,  sooner  or  later,  fundamental  modification. 
The  process  of  amendment  is  stipulated  in  the  law  of  February  25, 
I875.1  Amendments  may  be  proposed  by  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public or  by  either  of  the  chambers  of  Parliament.  When,  by  a 
majority  of  votes  in  each,  the  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies  de- 
clare a  revision  of  the  constitutional  laws  necessary,  the  two  cham- 
bers are  required  to  be  convened  in  the  character  of  a  National  As- 
sembly, and  amendments  are  adopted  by  absolute  majority  of  this 
composite  body.  Contrary  to  earlier  French  practice,  the  exercise 
of  constituent  and  of  ordinary  legislative  powers  is  thus  lodged  in 
the  same  body  of  men,  the  only  difference  of  procedure  in  the  two 
instances  arising  from  the  temporary  amalgamation  of  the  chambers 
for  constituent  purposes.  The  sole  limitation  that  has  been  imposed 
upon  the  revising  powers  of  the  Assembly  is  contained  in  a  clause 
adopted  in  an  amendment  of  August  14,  1884,  which  forbids  that 
the  republican  style  of  government  be  made  the  subject  of  a  proposed 
revision.  In  point  of  fact,  amendments  have  been  few,  although 
some,  as  that  of  December  9,  1884,  modifying  the  methods  of  elect- 
ing senators  and  those  of  June  16,  1885,  and  February  13  and  July  17, 
1889,  re-establishing  single  districts  for  the  election  of  deputies  and 
prohibiting  multiple  candidatures,  have  been  of  a  high  degree  of 
importance. 

1  Art.  8.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  288. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT 

I.  THE  PRESIDENT 

Under  the  French  system  of  government  functions  of  a  purely 
executive  nature  are  vested  in  the  President  of  the  Republic  and  the 
Ministry,  assisted  by  a  numerous  and  highly  centralized  body  of 
administrative  officials.  The  presidency  had  its  origin  in  the  unsettled 
period  following  the  Prussian  war  when  it  was  commonly  believed  that 
monarchy,  in  one  form  or  another,  would  eventually  be  re-established. 
The  title  "President  of  the  Republic"  was  created  in  1871;  but  the 
office  as  it  exists  to-day  hardly  antedates  the  election  of  Marshal  Mac- 
Mahon  in  1873.  The  character  and  functions  of  the  presidency  were 
determined  in  no  small  measure  by  the  circumstance  that  by  those 
who  created  the  dignity  it  was  intended  merely  to  keep  the  French 
people  accustomed  to  visible  personal  supremacy,  and  so  to  make 
easier  the  future  transition  to  a  monarchical  system.  Counting  Thiers, 
the  Republic  has  had  thus  far  nine  presidents:  Adolphe  Thiers,  1871- 
1873;  Marshal  MacMahon,  1873-1879;  Jules  Grevy,  1879-1887; 
F.  Sadi-Carnot,  1887-1894;  Casimir-Perier,  June,  1894,  to  January, 
1895;  Felix  Faure,  1895-1899;  Emile  Loubet,  1899-1906;  Armand 
Falh'eres,  1906-1913;  and  Raymond  Poincare  elected  early  in  1913. 

332.  Election  and  Qualifications. — The  President  is  chosen  for 
seyen_^;ears  by  an  electoral  college  consisting  of  the  meinbers  of  _the 
Senate  and  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  meeting  at  Versailles  in 
National  Assembly.  The  choice  is  by  absolute  majority  of  the  Qom- 
bined  body.  The  constitutional  law  of  July  16,  1875,  stipulates  that 
one'month,  at  least,  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  the  President 
shall  call  together  the  National  Assembly  for  the  election  of  a  successor. 
In  default  of  such  summons,  the  meeting  takes  place  automatically 
on  the  fifteenth  day  before  the  expiration;  and  in  the  event  of  the 
death  or  resignation  of  the  President  the  Chambers  are  required  to 
assemble  immediately  without  summons.1  There  is  no  vice-president, 

1  Art.  3.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  291. 
308 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       309 

nor  any  law  of  succession,  so  that  whenever  the  presidential  office 
falls  vacant  there  must  be  a  new  election;  and,  at  whatever  time  and 
under  whatever  circumstance  begun,  the  term  of  the  newly  elected 
President  is  regularly  seven  years.  As  upon  the  occasion  of  the  assassi- 
nation of  Sadi-Carnot  in  1894,  a  vacancy  may  arise  wholly  unexpect- 
edly. Under  even  the  most  normal  conditions,  however,  the  election 
of  a  President  in  France  is  attended  by  no  period  of  campaigning 
comparable  with  that  which  attends  a  similar  event  in  the  United 
States.  The  Assembly  habitually  selects  a  man  who  has  long  been  a 
member,  and  has  perhaps  served  as  president,  of  one  or  the  other  of 
the  chambers,  who  has  had  experience  in  committee  work  and,  as  a 
rule,  in  one  or  more  ministerial  offices,  and  who,  above  all  things,  is 
not  too  aggressive  or  domineering.  An  election  is  likely  to  be  carried 
through  all  stages  within  the  space  of  forty-eight  hours.  The  qualifica- 
tions requisite  for  election  are  extremely  broad.  Until  1884  any  male 
citizen,  regardless  of  age,  affiliation,  or  circumstance,  was  eligible. 
In  the  year  mentioned  members  of  families  that  have  reigned  in  France 
were  debarred,  and  this  remains  the  only  formal  disqualification.  A 
President  is  eligible  indefinitely  for  re-election.1 

333.  Privileges. — The  President  is  paid  the  sum  of  iz2oozooo_francs 
a  year,  half  as  salary,  half  to  cover  travelling  expenses  and  the  outlays 
incumbent  upon  him  as  the  official  representative  of  the  nation.    He 
resides  in  the  Palais  de  PElysee,  where  he  maintains  in  a  measure 
the  state  and  ceremony  that  ordinarily  are  associated  only  with  mon- 
archy.   His  dignity  is  safeguarded  by  special  and  effective  penalties  I 
for  insult  and  libel.    Like  the  President  of  the  United  States,  during 
his  term  of  office  he  is  exempt  from  the  processes  of  the  ordinary 
courts;  but,  like  his  American  counterpart,  he  may  be  tried  by  the 
Senate,  on  articles  of  impeachment  presented  by  the  lower  legislative 
chamber.    The  President  of  the  United  States  may  be  impeached 
for  "treason,  bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors"; 
the  French  President  may  be  impeached  for  treason  only.    On  the 
other  hand,  whereas  the  penalty  that  may  be  imposed  upon  the  Amer- 
ican President  by  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  is  confined  to  removal 
from  office  and  disqualification  to  hold  office,  the  French  constitution 
fixes  no  limit  to  the  penalty  which  may  be  visited  upon  a  President 
convicted  of  treason.    So  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  he  might  be 
condemned  to  death. 

334.  Powers:  Participation  in  Law-making. — The  President  pos- 
sesses powers  which  are  numerous  and,  on  paper  at  least,  formidable. 

1  A.  Tridon,  France's  Way  of  Choosing  a  President,  in  Review  of  Reviews,  Dec., 
1912. 


310  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

A  first  group  pertains  to  the  making  of  law.  "The  President  of  the 
Republic,"  says  the  constitutional  law  of  February  25,  1875,  "shall 
have  the  initiative  of  laws,  concurrently  with  the  members  of  the  two 
chambers.  He  shall  promulgate  the  laws  when  they  have  been  voted 
by  the  two  chambers;  and  he  shall  look  after  and  secure  their  execu- 
tion." *  The  concurrent  power  of  initiating  legislation,  exercised 
through  the  Ministry,  is  something  that  is  not  possessed  by  the  Amer- 
ican President,  who  can  do  no  more  than  suggest  and  recommend 
measures  he  deems  desirable.  The  President  of  France,  on  the  other 
hand,  possesses  only  a  suspensive  veto.  He  may  remand  a  measure 
of  which  he  disapproves  for  fresh  consideration  by  Parliament;  but 
if  it  is  re-enacted,  by  even  a  simple  majority,  it  is  incumbent  upon  him 
to  promulgate  it  as  law.  If,  however,  the  veto  power  is  virtually  non- 
existent, the  President  possesses  an  important  prerogative  in  the  right 
of  issuing  ordinances  with  the  force  of  supplementary  legislation. 
These  may  be  not  merely  executive  orders  in  matters  of  detail,  such  as 
are  issued  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  but  sweeping  in- 
junctions deemed  essential  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  in  general. 
The  only  limitation  is  that  such  ordinances  must  not  contravene  the 
constitution  or  any  enactment  of  the  chambers.  The  power  is  one 
which,  rather  curiously,  rests  upon  no  express  constitutional  provi- 
sion, but  simply  upon  custom.  The  right  which  the  President  pos- 
sesses, with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  dissolve  the  ChamBer  of 
Deputies  before  the  expiration  of  its  term,  thereby  precipitating  a 
general  election,  may  also  be  made  the  means  of  exercising  considerable 
influence  upon  legislative  processes  and  achievements. 

y  335.  Powers:  Executive  and  Judicial. — As  the  head  of  the  national 

administration,  the  President  appoints  to  all  civil  and  military  offices 
connected  with  the  central  government.  His  appointments  do  not 
require  ratification  by  the  Senate,  or  by  any  other  body.  He  may  even 
create,  by  decree,  new  offices.  And  his  power  of  removal  from  office, 
save  in  certain  cases,  is  absolutely  without  restriction.  Appointments 
and  removals,  however,  are  in  practice  made  through  the  Ministry, 
and  the  President  has  no  patronage  at  his  immediate  disposal  other 
than  that  of  the  posts  in  his  own  household.  In  respect  to  foreign 
affairs  the  President's  powers  are  more  substantial.  Like  the  American 
President,  he  represents  his  country  in  the  sending  and  receiving  of 
ambassadors,  ministers,  envoys,  and  consuls,  and  in  the  negotiation 
and  conclusion  of  treaties.  Treaties  affecting  peace,  commerce,  terri- 
torial possessions,  finances,  or  the  status  of  Frenchmen  in  foreign 
countries,  require  the  ratification  of  the  chambers;  others  call  for  no 
1  Art.  3.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  286. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       311 

such  action,  and  even  a  foreign  alliance  may  be  concluded  by  the 
Executive  working  independently.  On  the  military  side,  the  President 
is  commander-in-chief  of  the  armed  forces  of  the  nation,  military  and 
naval.  He  may  not  declare  war  without  the  consent  of  the  chambers; 
but  through  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs  he  may  at  any  time,  very 
much  as  may  the  President  of  the  United  States,  create  a  situation 
by  which  war  will  be  rendered  inevitable.  Finally,  the  President  is 
vested  with  the  powers  of  pardon  and  reprieve,  although  amnesty  may 
be  granted  only  by  law.1  _^  ^^  ^ 

H.  THE  MINISTRY  '*  ^*  ' 

336.  Importance  in  the  Government. — "There  is,"  says  an  English 
writer  of  the  last  generation,  "no  living  functionary  who  occupies  a 
more  pitiable  position  than  a  French  President.    The  old  kings  of 
France  reigned  and  governed.    The  Constitutional  King,  according  to 
M.  Thiers,  reigns,  but  does  not  govern.    The  President  of  the  United 
States  governs,  but  he  does  not  reign.    It  has  been  reserved  for  the 
President  of  the  French  Republic  neither  to  reign  nor  yet  to  povern."  2 
The  weakness  of  the  French  PresicTent's  position  arises  specifically 
from  two  clauses  of  the  constitutional  law  of  February  25,  1875.    One 
of  them  stipulates  that  "every  act  of  the  President  of  the  Republic 
shall  be  countersigned  by  a  minister."    The  other  provides  that  "the 
ministers  shall  be  collectively  responsible  to  the  chambers  for  the 
general  policy  of  the  government,  and  individually  for  their  personal 
acts."  3    Unde"r  the  operation  of  these  principles  ine  Ministry  becomes 
the  real  executive.    Like  the  sovereign  of  Great  Britain,  the  President 
can  do  no  wrong,  because  the  acts  that  are  officially  his  are  in  reality 
performed  by  the  ministers,  who  alone  (save  in  the  case  of  treason) 
are  responsible  for  them.    Chosen  by  the  members  of  Parliament,  the 
President  belongs  normally  to  the  party  group  which  is  at  the  time  in 
the  ascendant,  and  by  it  he  is  kept  in  tutelage.    The  leaders  of  this 
group  are  the  ministers,  and,  in  a  very  large  measure,  the  President 
simply  approves  passively  the  policies  of  this  body  of  men  and  signs 
and  promulgates  the  measures  which  it  carries  through  the  chambers. 

337.  Organization  and  Functions. — Ministerial  portfolios  are  created 

1  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  358-372;  J.  Nadal,  Attributions  du  president  de  la 
rSpublique  en  France  et  aux  fitats-Unis  (Toulouse,  1909).    For  a  brief  American 
discussion  of  the  same  subject  see  M.  Smith,  The  French  Presidency  and  the 
American,  in  Review  of  Reviews,  Feb.,  1906.    Cf.  A.  Cohn,  Why  M.  Fallieres  is  an 
Ideal  French  President,  ibid.,  July,  1908. 

2  Henry  Maine,  Popular  Government  (London,  1885),  250. 
8  Arts.  3  and  6.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  287. 


312  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

by  executive  decree.  Their  number  has  been  somewhat  variable. 
In  1875  there  were  nine.  In  1879  there  was  created  a  tenth.  Be- 
tween 1 88 1  and  1887  there  were  eleven.  To-day  there  are  twelve, 
as  follows:  (i)  Interior;  (2)  Finance;  (3)  War;  (4)  Justice  and  Public 
Worship;  (5)  Marine;  (6)  Colonies;  (7)  Public  Instruction:  (8)  Foreign 
Affairs;  (9)  Commerce;  (10)  Agriculture;  (n)  Public  Works  and  Ppsts, 
Telegraphs,  and  Telephones;  and  (12)  Labor.  Portfolios  may  be  not 
only  created  but  rearranged  by  simple  executive  decree,  though  of 
course  the  necessary  financial  provisions  are  conditioned  upon  the 
approval  of  the  chambers.  The  premier  may  occupy  any,  one  of  the 
ministerial  posts,  or  even  two,  of  them  at  one  time.  He  is  named  by 
the  President,  and  he,  acting  with  the  President,  designates  his  col- 
leagues and  allots  to  them  their  respective  portfolios.  Usually,  though 
not  necessarily,  the  ministers  are  members  of  the  Senate  or  of  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  principally  the  latter.1  Whether  members  or 
not,  they  have  a  right  to  attend  all  sessions  of  both  chambers  and  to 
take  an  especially  privileged  part  in  debate.  Ministers  receive  annual 
salaries  of  60,000  francs  and  reside,  as  a  rule,  in  the  official  mansions 
maintained  for  the  heads  of  the  departments  they  control. 

Collectively  the  ministers  possess  two  sets  of  functions  which  are 
essentially  distinct.  The  one  they  fulfill  as  a  "council";  the  other  as  a 
"  cabinet."  In  the  capacity  of  a  council  they  exercise  a  general  super- 
vision of  the  administration  of  the  laws,  to  the  end  that  there  may  be 
efficiency  and  unity  in  the  affairs  of  state.  In  the  event  of  the  Pres- 
ident's death,  incapacitation,  or  resignation,  the  Council  is  authorized 
to  act  as  head  of  the  state  until  the  National  Assembly  shall  have 
chosen  a  successor.  As  a  cabinet  the  ministers  formulate  the  funda- 
mental policies  of  the  Government  and  represent  it  in  the  chambers. 
The  Council  is  administrative  and  is  expressly  recognized  by  law;  the 
Cabinet  is  political  and  is  not  so  recognized.  In  the  meetings  of  the 
Council  the  President  of  the  Republic  not  only  sits,  but  presides;  in 
those  of  the  Cabinet  he  rarely  even  appears.  Aside  from  the  President, 
however,  the  two  bodies,  in  personnel,  are  identical.2 

338.  The  Parliamentary  System:  Multiplicity  of  Parties. — On 
paper  France  has  to-day  a  parliamentary  system  of  government  sub- 

1  In  earlier  days  the  ministers  of  war  and  of  the  marine  were  selected  not  infre- 
quently from  outside  Parliament,  but  this  practice  has  been  discontinued. 

2  Dupriez,  Les  ministres,  II.,  332-357.    A  recent  treatise  of  value  is  H.  Noell, 
L' Administration  centrale;  les  ministSres,  leur  organisation,  leur  role  (Paris,  1911). 
Mention  may  be  made  of  L.  Rolland,  Le  Conseil  d'  fitat  et  les  rSglements  d'admin- 
istration  publique,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  April-June,  1911;   J.  Barthelemy, 
Les  sous-secre"taires  d'etat,  ibid.;  P.  Ma,  reorganisation  du  Ministfcre  des  Colonies, 
in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  Sept.  i,  1910. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       313 

stantially  like  that  which  prevails  in  Great  Britain.  The  President's  / 
authority  is  but  nominal.  The  real  executive  consists  of  the  ministers. 
These  ministers  are  responsible,  collectively  in  general  matters  and 
individually  in  particular  ones,  to  the  chambers,  in  reality  to  the  ^*0£, S 
Chamber  of  Deputies.  When  defeated  on  any  important  proposition, 
they  resign  as  a  body.  Parliamentary  government  in  France  means, 
however,  in  practice,  something  very  different  from  what  it  means 
across  the  Channel.  The  principal  reason  why  this  is  so  is  to  be 
found  in  the  totally  different  status  of  political  parties  in  the  two 
countries.  In  Great  Britain,  while  in  later  years  small  political  groups 
have  sprung  up  to  complicate  the  situation,  the  political  life  of  the 
nation  is  still  confined  very  largely  to  the  two  great  rival  parties, 
which  oppose  to  each  other  a  fairly  united  front,  and  between  which 
there  is  not  likely  to  be  anything  like  fusion  or  affiliation.  In  France, 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  a  multiplicity  of  parties  and  no  one  of  them 
is  likely  ever  to  be  in  a  position  to  dominate  the  Government  alone. 
The  election  of  1910  sent  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  representatives 
of  no  fewer  than  nine  distinct  political  groups.  No  ministry  can  be 
made  up  with  any  hope  of  its  being  able  to  command  a  working  major- 
ity in  the  Chamber  unless  it  represents  in  its  membership  a  coalition 
of  several  parties.  A  Government  so  constituted,  however,  is  almost 
inevitably  vacillating  and  short-lived.  It  is  unable  to  please  all  of  the 
groups  and  interests  upon  which  it  relies;  it  dares  displease  none;  it 
ends  not  infrequently  by  displeasing  all. 

339.  Frequency  of  Ministerial  Changes. — It  is  from  this  condition 
of  things  that  there  arises  the  remarkable  frequency  with  which 
ministerial  crises  and  ministerial  changes  take  place  in  France.  The 
ministry  of  M.  Poincare,  established  in  January,  1912,  was  the  forty- 
fifth  in  the  history  of  French  parliamentarism  since  1875 — a  period  of 
but  thirty-seven  years.  Between  1875  and  1900  but  four  years  elapsed 
without  at  least  one  change  of  ministry.  Since  1900  changes  have  been 
somewhat  less  frequent.  The  Waldeck-Rousseau  ministry  of  1899- 
1902 — the  longest-lived  since  1875 — endured  virtually  three  years;  the 
Combes  ministry  of  1902-1905  lasted  more  than  two  years  and  a  half; 
and  the  Clemenceau  ministry  of  1906-1909  fell  but  little  short  of  two 
years  and  nine  months.  None  the  less,  a  total  of  nine  ministries  within 
the  space  of  thirteen  years  means  an  average  of  but  one  year  and  a 
half  to  the  ministry.  It  is  but  fair  to  say  that  the  ordinary  "crisis" 
is  not  likely  to  involve  a  complete  ministerial  change.  Defeated  in  the 
Chamber,  or  unable  to  make  progress,  the  ministry  as  a  body  resigns; 
but,  as  a  rule,  many  of  the  members  are  immediately  reappointed, 
with  perhaps  a  change  of  portfolios.  A  certain  continuity  arises  also 


314  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

from  the  fact  that  the  subordinate  officials  in  the  various  departments 
enjoy  a  reasonable  fixity  of  tenure.  Nevertheless  the  most  obvious 
feature  of  parliamentary  government  as  it  exists  to-day  in  France,  and 
in  other  continental  countries,  is  its  instability.  Only  where,  as  in 
England,  there  are  two  great  parties,  each  possessing  solidarity  and 
sufficient  strength,  if  returned  to  power,  to  support  a  homogeneous 
and  sympathetic  ministry,  can  the  more  desirable  results  of  the  parlia- 
mentary system  be  realized  in  full.  There  is  as  yet  no  evidence  that 
such  parties  are  in  France  in  process  of  development.1 

340.  Interpellation. — The  precariousness  of  the  position  occupied 
by  French  ministries  is  enhanced  by  the  parliamentary  device  of  inter- 
pellation. As  in  Great  Britain,  every  member  of  the  two  chambers 
possesses  the  right  at  any  time  to  put  to  an  executive  head  a  direct 
question  concerning  any  affair  of  state  which,  without  impropriety, 
may  be  made  the  subject  of  open  discussion.  A  minister  may  not, 
however,  be  questioned  without  his  consent,  and  the  incident  ordinarily 
passes  without  debate.  In  France,  however,  any  member  may  direct 
at  a  minister  an  interpellation,  designed  not  to  obtain  information,  but 
to  put  the  Government  on  the  defensive  and  to  precipitate  a  debate 
which  may  end  in  the  overthrow  of  the  ministry  on  some  mere  tech- 
nicality or  other  matter  in  itself  of  but  slight  importance.  The  inter- 
pellation is  a  challenge.  It  is  made  the  special  order  for  a  day  fixed 
by  the  chamber,  and  it  almost  invariably  results  in  a  vote  of  confidence, 
or  want  of  confidence,  in  the  ministers.  As  employed  in  France,  the 
interpellation  lends  itself  too  readily  to  the  ends  of  sheer  factiousness  to 
be  adjudged  a  valuable  feature  of  parliamentary  procedure.2 

1  A  French  scholar  writes:  "Power  cannot  pass  alternately,  as  in  England  and 
the  United  States,  from  the  party  on  one  side  over  to  the  party  in  opposition.    This 
alternation,  this  game  of  see-saw  between  two  opposing  parties,  which  certain 
theorists  have  declared  to  be  the  indispensable  condition  of  every  parliamentary 
r6gime,  does  not  exist,  and  has  never  existed,  in  France.    The  reason  why  is  simple. 
If  the  party  of  the  Right,  hostile  to  the  Republic,  should  come  into  power,  the 
temptation  would  be  too  strong  for  them  to  maintain  themselves  there  by  estab- 
lishing an  autocratic  government,  which  would  put  an  end  to  the  parliamentary 
regime,  as  in  1851.    The  electors  are  conscious  of  this  tendency  of  the  Conserva- 
tives, and  will  not  run  the  risk  of  entrusting  the  Republic  to  them.    When  they  are 
discontented  with  the  Republicans  in  power,  they  vote  for  other  Republicans. 
Thus,  new  Republican  groups  are  being  ceaselessly  formed,  while  the  old  ones  fall 
to  pieces."    C.  Seignobos,  The  Political  Parties  of  France,  in  International  Monthly, 
Aug.,  1901,  155.    On  the  French  parliamentary  system  see  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres, 
II.,  345-357,  373-461;  E.  Pierre,  Principes  du  droit  politique  electoral  et  parlemen- 
taire  en  France  (Paris,  1893). 

2  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  432-461.    L.  Gozzi,  L'Interpellation  a  1'assemble'e 
pationale  (Marseilles,  1909);  J.  Poudra  and  E.  Pierre,  Traite"  pratique  de  droit 
parlementaire,  8  vols.  (Versailles,  1878-1880),  VII.,  Chap.  4. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       315 


III.  PARLIAMENT:  SENATE  AND  CHAMBER  OF  DEPUTIES 

341.  The  Bicameral  System.— With  the  dissolution  of  the  States 
General  in  1789,  France  definitely  abandoned  a  parliamentary  system 
based  upon  the  mediaeval  principle  of  orders  or  estates.  Throughout 
upwards  of  a  hundred  years,  however,  the  scheme  of  parliamentary  or- 
ganization which  was  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  had  been  cast  aside 
continued  uncertain.  During  the  Revolution  ultra-democratic  re- 
formers very  generally  favored  the  maintenance  of  a  national  assembly 
of  but  a  single  house,  and  it  was  not  until  the  promulgation  of  the 
constitution  of  1795  that  a  frame  of  government  including  provision 
for  a  legislature  of  two  houses  was  brought  into  operation.  The  bkam- 
eral  system  of  1795-1799  was  succeeded  by  the  anomalous  legislative 
regime  of  Napoleon,  but  under  the  Constitutional  Charter  of  1814  the 
two-house  principle  was  revived  and  continuously  applied  through  a 
period  of  thirty-four  years.  The  legislative  organ  of  the  Second  Re- 
public was  a  unicameral  assembly,  but  an  incident  of  the  transition 
to  the  Second  Empire  was  the  revival  of  a  Senate,  and  throughout 
the  reign  of  Napoleon  III.  the  legislative  chambers  were  nominally 
two  in  number,  although  it  was  not  until  1870  that  the  Senate  as  a 
legislative  body  was  made  co-ordinate  with  the  Corps  legislatif.  On 
the  whole,  it  can  be  affirmed  that  at  the  period  when  the  constitution 
of  the  Third  Republic  was  given  form,  the  political  experience  of  the 
nation  had  demonstrated  the  bicameral  system  to  be  the  most  natural, 
the  safest,  and  the  most  effective.  The  opening  stipulation  of  the 
Constitutional  Law  on  the  Organization  of  the  Public  Powers,  adopted 
February  25,  1875,  was  that  the  law-making  power  of  France  should 
be  exercised  by  a  national  parliament  consisting  of  (i)  a  Chamber  of 
Deputies  and  (2)  a  Senate.  The  one,  it  was  determined,  should  rest 
upon  a  broadly  democratic  basis.  The  other  was  planned,  as  is 
customary  with  second  chambers,  to  stand  somewhat  further  removed 
from  the  immediate  control  of  the  voters  of  the  country.  But  the  two 
were  intended  to  exist  fundamentally  to  enact  into  law  the  will  of  the 
people,  in  whom  the  sovereignty  of  the  French  nation  is  clearly  lodged. 
And  even  the  most  casual  survey  of  the  French  governmental  system 
as  it  operates  to-day  will  impress  the  fact  that  the  structure  and  organi- 
zation of  the  parliamentary  body  have  lent  themselves  to  the  usages 
of  a  democratic  state  in  a  measure  even  exceeding  that  intended  by  the 
founders  of  the  existing  order. 

342.  The  Senate  as  Originally  Established. — Having  determined  that 
the  parliament  should  consist  of  two  branches,  the  National  Assembly, 


3i6  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

in  1875,  faced  the  difficult  problem  of  constituting  an  upper  chamber  that 
should  not  be  a  mere  replica  of  the  lower,  and  yet  should  not  inject  into 
a  democratic  constitutional  system  an  incongruous  element  of  aristoc- 
racy. The  device  hit  upon  was  a  chamber,  seats  in  which  should  be 
wholly  elective,  yet  not  at  the  immediate  disposal  of  the  people.  By  the 
constitutional  law  of  February  24, 1875,  it  was  provided  that  the  Senate 
should  consist  of  three  hundred  members,  of  whom  two  hundred  twenty- 
five  should  be  elected  by  the  departments  and  colonies  and  seventy- 
five  by  the  National  Assembly  itself.1  The  departments  of  the  Seine 
and  of  the  Nord  were  authorized  to  elect  five  senators  each,  the  others 
four,  three,  or  two,  as  specified  in  the  law.  The  senators  of  the  depart- 
ments and  of  the  colonies  were  to  be  elected  by  an  absolute  majority 
and  by  scrutin  de  liste,  by  a  college  meeting  at  the  capital  of  the  depart- 
ment or  colony,  composed  of  the  deputies  and  general  councillors  and 
of  delegates  elected,  one  by  each  municipal  council,  from  among  the  vot- 
ers of  the  communes.  Senators  chosen  by  the  Assembly  were  to  be  elec- 
ted by  scrutin  de  liste  and  by  an  absolute  majority  of  votes.  No  one 
should  be  chosen  who  had  not  attained  the  age  of  forty  years,  and  who 
was  not  in  enjoyment  of  full  civil  and  political  rights.  The  seventy-five 
elected  by  the  Assembly  were  to  retain  their  seats  for  life,  vacancies  that 
should  arise  being  filled  by  the  Senate  itself.  All  other  members  were 
to  be  elected  for  nine  years,  being  renewed  by  thirds  every  three  years. 

343.  The  Senate:  Composition  and  Election  To-day. — The  sys- 
tem thus  devised  continues,  in  the  main,  in  effect  at  the  present 
day.  The  principal  variations  from  it  are  those  introduced  in  a 
constitutional  law  of  December  9,  1884,  whereby  it  was  provided 
(i)  that  the  co-optative  method  of  election  should  be  abolished, 
and  that,  while  present  life  members  should  retain  their  seats  as 
long  as  they  should  live,  all  vacancies  thereafter  arising  from  the 
decease  of  such  members  should  be  filled  within  the  departments 
in  the  regular  manner,  and  (2)  that  the  electoral  college  of  the  de- 
partment should  be  broadened  to  include  not  merely  one  delegate 
from  each  municipal  council,  but  from  one  to  twenty-four  (thirty 
in  the  case  of  Paris),  according  to  the  number  of  members  in  the 
council.2  By  the  same  law  members  of  families  that  have  reigned 
in  France  were  declared  ineligible;  and  by  act  of  July  20,  1895, 
no  one  may  become  a  member  of  either  branch  of  Parliament  un- 
less he  has  complied  with  the  law  regarding  military  service. 

Few  of  the  life  members  survive  to-day.  When  they  shall  have 
disappeared,  the  French  Senate  will  comprise  a  compact  body  of 

1  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  288. 

2  Ibid.,  L,  310. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       317 

^L 


three  hundred  men  apportioned  among  the  departments  in  ap- 
proximate accordance  with  population  and  chosen  in  all  cases  by 
bodies  of  electors  all  of  whom  have  themselves  been  elected  directly 
by  the  people.  The  present  apportionment  gives  to  the  department 
of  the  Seine  ten  members;  to  that  of  the  Nord,  eight;  to  others,  five 
four,  three,  and  two  apiece,  down  to  the  territory  of  Belfort  and 
the  three  departments  of  Algeria,  and  the  colonies  of  Martinique, 
Guadeloupe,  Reunion,  and  the  French  West  Indies,  which  return 
one  each.  From  having  long  been  viewed  by  republicans  with  sus- 
picion, the  Senate  has  come  to  be  regarded  by  Frenchmen  gener- 
ally as  perhaps  the  most  perfect  work  of  the  Republic.1  In  these 
days  its  membership  is  recruited  very  largely  from  the  Deputies, 
so  that  it  includes  not  only  many  men  of  distinction  in  letters  and 
science  but  an  unusual  proportion  of  experienced  debaters  and 
parliamentarians.  A  leading  American  authority  has  said  that  it 
is  "  composed  of  as  impressive  a  body  of  men  as  can  be  found  in 
any  legislative  chamber  the  world  over."2  The  sittings  of  the 
Senate,  since  1879,  nave  been  held  in  the  Palais  du  Luxembourg, 
a  splendid  structure  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Seine  dating  from  the 
early  seventeenth  century.3 

344.  The   Chamber  of  Deputies:   Composition. — The   597  mem- 
bers of  the  lower  legislative  branch  are  chosen  directly  by  the  people,      ^-, 
under  conditions  regulated  by  a  series  of  electoral  measures,  prin- 
cipally the  organic  law  of  November  30,  i875.4    The  franchise^ '*' 
extended  to  all  male  inhabitants  who  have  attained  the  age  of 
twenty-one,  and  who  are  not  convicts,  bankrupts,  under  guardian- 
ship, or  in  active  military  or  naval  service.    Of  educational  or  prop- 
erty qualifications  there  are  none.    The  only  requirements  are  that 

the  voter  shall  have  his  name  inscribed  on  the  electoral  lists  and 
shall  be  able  to  prove  a  residence  of  six  months  in  the  commune 
in  which  he  proposes  to  cast  his  ballot.  The  conditions  of  the  fran- 
chise are  prescribed  by  the  state;  but  the  keeping  and  the  annual 
revision  of  the  electoral  lists  devolves  upon  the  commune,  and  the 
lists  are  identical  for  communal,  district,  departmental,  and  national 
elections.  The  French  registration  system  is  notably  effective  and, 
as  compared  with  the  British,  inexpensive. 

345.  Electoral  Unit  and  Parliamentary  Candidacies. — The  electo- 
ral area  in  France  is  the  arrondissement,  an  administrative  sub- 

1  J.  C.  Bracq,  France  under  the  Republic  (New  York,  1910),  8. 
'Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  22.    But  compare  the  view  set  forth  in 
J.  S.  C.  Bodley,  France,  2  vols.  (London,  1898),  I.,  46-60. 

8  O.  Pyfferoen,  Du  s6nat  en  France  et  dans  les  Pays-Bas  (Brussels,  1892). 
*  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  302-308. 


3iS  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

division  of  the  department.  Each  arrondissement  returns  one 
deputy,  unless  its  population  exceeds  100,000,  in  which  case  it  is 
divided  into  single-member  constituencies,  one  for  each  100,000  or 
remaining  fraction  thereof.  A  fresh  apportionment  is  made  after 
each  quinquennial  census,  when  to  each  of  the  eighty-six  depart- 
ments is  allotted  a  quota  of  representatives  proportioned  to  popula- 
tion. The  present  method  of  election,  under  which  the  individual 
elector  votes  within  his  arrondissement  or  district  for  one  deputy 
only,  is  known  as  the  scrutin  d' arrondissement.  Established  in  1876, 
the  scrutin  d' arrondissement  was  employed  until  1885,  when,  at  the 
behest  of  Gambetta,  a  change  was  made  to  a  system  under  which 
deputies  for  an  entire  department  were  voted  for  on  a  general  ticket, 
as,  for  example,  presidential  electors  are  voted  for  in  an  American 
state.  This  system — the  so-called  scrutin  de  liste — was  maintained 
in  operation  only  until  1889,  when  the  scrutin  d' arrondissement  was 
re-established.1 

The  full  membership  of  the  Chamber  is  elected  simultaneously, 
for  a  four-year  term,  save  in  the  event  that  the  Chamber  shall  be 
sooner  dissolved.  No  nomination,  or  similar  formality,  is  required 
of  the  candidate.  To  be  eligible,  however,  he  must  be  a  qualified 
voter  and  as  much  as  twenty-five  years  of  age.  By  law  of  Novem- 
ber 30, 1875,  state  officials  are  forbidden  to  become  candidates  in  dis- 
tricts where  their  position  might  enable  them  to  influence  elections, 
and  by  act  of  June  16,  1885,  members  of  families  who  have  ever 
reigned  in  France  are  debarred.  All  that  is  required  of  a  person 
who,  possessing  the  requisite  legal  qualifications,  wishes  to  be  a 
candidate  is  that  five  days  before  the  election  he  shall  deposit  with 
the  prefect  of  the  department  within  which  the  polling  is  to  take 
place  a  declaration,  witnessed  by  a  mayor,  of  the  name  of  the  con- 
stituency in  which  he  proposes  to  seek  election.  Even  this  trifling 
formality  was  introduced  only  by  the  Multiple  Candidature  Act 
of  1889,  by  which  it  is  stipulated  that  no  person  shall  be  a  candidate 
in  more  than  one  district.  The  French  electorate  is  proverbially 
indifferent  concerning  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage,  but  the  methods 
of  campaigning  which  have  become  familiar  in  other  countries  are 
employed  systematically,  and  no  small  measure  of  popular  interest 
is  occasionally  aroused.2 

1  Laws  of  June  16,  1885,  and  February  13,  1889;  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I.,  316-318. 

2  "During  the  electoral  period,  circulars  and  platforms  signed  by  the  candidates, 
electoral  placards  and  manifestoes  signed  by  one  or  more  voters,  may,  after  being 
deposited  with  the  public  prosecutor,  be  posted  and  distributed  without  previous 
authorization."    Organic  Law  of  November  30,  1875,  Art.  3. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       319 

346.  The  Conduct  of  Parliamentary  Elections. — The  electoral 
process  is  simple  and  inexpensive.  Voting  is  by  secret  ballot,  and 
the  balloting  lasts  one  day  only.  As  a  rule,  the  polling  takes  place 
in  the  mairie,  or  municipal  building,  of  the  commune,  under  the 
immediate  supervision  of  an  electoral  bureau  consisting  of  a  presi- 
dent (usually  the  mayor),  four  assessors,  and  a  secretary.  The  state 
does  not  provide  ballot-papers,  but  one  or  more  of  the  candidates  may 
be  depended  upon  to  supply  the  deficiency.  The  count  is  public  and 
the  result  is  announced  without  delay.  If  it  is  found  that  no  candidate 
within  the  district  has  polled  an  absolute  majority  of  the  votes  cast, 
and  at  the  same  time  a  fourth  of  the  number  which  the  registered 
voters  of  the  district  are  legally  capable  of  casting,  a  second  balloting 
(the  so-called  ballottage)  is  ordered  for  one  week  from  the  ensuing 
Sunday.  No  one  of  the  candidates  voted  for  drops  out  of  the  con- 
test, unless  by  voluntary  withdrawal;  new  candidates,  at  even  so 
late  a  day,  may  enter  the  race;  and  whoever,  at  the  second  balloting, 
secures  a  simple  plurality  is  declared  elected.  By  observers  gener- 
ally it  is  considered  that  the  principle  of  the  second  ballot,  in  the 
form  in  which  it  is  applied  in  France,  possesses  no  very  decisive 
value.  Through  a  variety  of  agencies  the  central  government  is 
accustomed  to  exert  substantial  influence  in  parliamentary  elections ; 
but  all  of  the  more  important  political  groups  have  profited  at  one 
time  or  another  by  the  practice,  and  there  is  to-day  a  very  general 
acquiescence  in  it,  save  on  the  part  of  unsuccessful  candidates  whose 
prospects  have  been  injured  by  it. 


IV.  THE  PROBLEM  OF  ELECTORAL  REFORM 

347.  Scrutin  de  liste  and  scrutin  d'arrondissement. — Within 
recent  years  there  has  arisen,  especially  among  the  Republicans  and 
Socialists,  an  insistent  demand  for  a  thoroughgoing  reform  of  the 
electoral  process.  Those  who  criticise  the  present  system  are  far 
from  agreed  as  to  precisely  what  would  be  more  desirable,  but,  in 
general,  there  are  two  preponderating  programmes.  One  of  these 
calls  simply  for  abandonment  of  the  scrutin  d'arrondissement  and 
a  return  to  the  scrutin  de  liste.  The  other  involves  both  a  return 
to  the  scrutin  de  liste  and  the  adoption  of  a  scheme  of  proportional 
representation.  The  arrondissement,  many  maintain,  is  too  small 
to  be  made  to  serve  satisfactorily  as  an  electoral  unit.  Within  a 
sphere  so  restricted  the  larger  interests  of  the  nation  are  in  danger 
of  being  lost  to  view  and  political  life  is  prone  to  be  reduced  to  a 
wearisome  round  of  compromise,  demagogy,  and  trivialities.  If, 


320  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

it  is  contended,  all  deputies  from  a  department  were  to  be  elected 
on  a  single  ticket,  the  elector  would  value  his  privilege  more  highly, 
the  candidate  would  be  in  a  position  to  make  a  more  dignified  cam- 
paign, and  issues  which  are  national  in  their  scope  would  less  fre- 
quently be  obscured  by  questions  and  interests  of  a  petty  and  purely 
local  character.  Professor  Duguit,  of  the  University  of  Bordeaux, 
who  is  one  of  the  abler  exponents  of  this  proposed  reform,  contends 
(i)  that  the  scheme  of  scrutin  de  liste  harmonizes  better  than  does 
that  of  scrutin  d'arrondissement  with  the  fundamental  theory  of 
representation  in  France,  which  is  that  the  deputies  who  go  to  Paris 
do  so  as  representatives  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  not  of  a  single 
locality;  (2)  that  the  scrutin  d'arrondissement  facilitates  corruption 
through  the  temptation  which  it  affords  candidates  to  make  to  voters 
promises  of  favors,  appointments,  and  decorations,  and  (3)  that  the 
prevailing  system  augments  materially  the  more  or  less  questionable 
influence  which  the  Government  is  able  to  bring  to  bear  in  the  elec- 
tion of  deputies.1  It  does  not  appear  that  in  the  period  1885-1889 
when  the  scrutin  de  liste  was  in  operation  the  very  desirable  ends  now 
expected  to  be  attained  by  a  restoration  of  it  were  realized;  indeed 
the  system  lent  itself  more  readily  to  the  menacing  operations  of  the 
ambitious  Boulanger  than  the  scrutin  d1  arrondissement  could  pos- 
sibly have  done.  It  is  but  fair,  however,  to  observe  that  the  trial 
of  the  system  was  very  brief  and  that  it  fell  in  a  period  of  unusual 
political  unsettlement. 

348.  Proportional  Representation. — In  the  judgment  of  many 
reformers  a  simple  enlarging  of  the  electoral  unit,  however  desirable 
in  itself,  would  be  by  no  means  adequate  to  place  the  national 
parliament  upon  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  basis.  There  is  in  France 
a  growing  demand  for  the  adoption  of  some  scheme  whereby  minori- 
ties within  the  several  departments  shall  become  entitled  to  a  pro- 
portionate voice  in  the  Chamber  at  Paris.  And  hence  a  second 
programme  of  reform  is  that  which  calls  not  merely  for  the  scrutin 
de  liste,  but  also  for  proportional  representation.  Within  the  past 
two  decades  the  spread  of  the  proportional  representation  idea 
in  Europe  has  been  rapid.  Beginning  in  1891,  the  device  has  been 
adopted  by  one  after  another  of  the  Swiss  cantons,  until  now  it  is 
in  use  in  some  measure  in  upwards  of  half  of  them.  Since  1899 
Belgium  has  employed  it  in  the  election  of  all  members  of  both 
chambers  of  her  parliament.  In  1906  it  was  adopted  by  Finland 
and  by  the  German  state  of  Wiirttemberg.  In  1908  Denmark,  in 
which  country  the  system  has  been  employed  in  the  election  of 
1  L.  Duguit,  Trait6  de  droit  constitutionnel,  I.,  375-376. 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       321 

members  of  the  upper  chamber  since  1867,  extended  its  use  to  elec- 
tions in  the  municipalities.1  In  1907  an  act  of  the  Swedish  parlia- 
ment (confirmed  after  a  general  election  in  1909)  applied  it  to  elec- 
tions for  both  legislative  chambers,  all  parliamentary  committees, 
and  provincial  and  town  councils.  In  France  there  was  organized 
in  1909,  under  the  leadership  of  M.  Charles  Benoist,  a  Proportional 
Representation  League  by  which  there  has  been  carried  on  in  recent 
years  a  very  vigorous  and  promising  propaganda.  The  principal 
arguments  employed  by  the  advocates  of  the  proposed  reform  are 

(1)  that  the  effect  of  its  adoption  would  be  greatly  to  increase  the 
aggregate  vote  cast  in  parliamentary  elections,  since  electors  be- 
longing to  minority  parties  would  be  assured  of  actual  representation; 

(2)  that  it  would  no  longer  be  possible,  as  is  now  regularly  the  case, 
for  the  number  of  voters  unrepresented  by  deputies  of  their  own 
political  faith  to  be  in  excess  of  the  number  of  electors  so  represented;2 
and  (3)  that  a  parliament  in  which  the  various  parties  are  represented 
in  proportion  to  their  voting  strength  can  be  depended  upon  to  know 
and  to  execute  the  will  of  the  nation  with  more  precision  than  can  a 
legislative  body  elected  after  the  principle  of  the  majority  system.3 

349.  The  Government  and  Reform. — During  upwards  of  a  decade 
the  successive  ministries  of  France  have  been  committed  to  the  cause 
of  electoral  reform.  In  March,  1907,  a  special  committee  of  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  (the  Commission  du  Suffrage  Universe!),  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  various  bills  which  had  been  submitted  upon  the  subject, 
reported  a  scheme  of  proportional  representation  whereby  it  was  be- 
lieved certain  disadvantages  inherent  in  the  "list  system"  of  Belgium 
might  be  obviated.  Elections  were  to  be  by  scrutin  de  liste  and  the 
elector  was  to  be  allowed  to  cast  as  many  votes  as  there  were  places 
to  be  filled  and  to  concentrate  as  many  of  these  votes  as  he  might  choose 
upon  a  single  candidate.4  In  November,  1909,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 

JThe  first  English-speaking  state  to  adopt  the  system  was  Tasmania,  where, 
after  being  in  partial  operation  in  1896-1901,  it  was  brought  fully  into  effect  in 
1907.  By  an  electoral  law  of  1900  Japan  adopted  it  for  the  election  of  the  members 
of  her  House  of  Commons.  The  plan  was  put  in  operation  in  Cuba  April  i,  1908, 
and  was  adopted  in  Oregon  by  a  referendum  of  June  i,  1908. 

2  It  is  the  assertion  of  M.  Benoist  that  this  situation  has  existed  unbrokenly  since 
1 88 1.    An  interesting  fact  cited  is  that  the  notable  Separation  Law  of  1905  was 
adopted  in  the  Chamber  by  the  votes  of  341  deputies  who  represented  in  the  aggre- 
gate but  2,647,315  electors  in  a  national  total  of  10,967,000. 

3  Duguit,  op.  cit.y  argues  forcefully  in  behalf  of  the  proposed  change.    For  ad- 
verse views,  cogently  stated  by  an  equally  eminent  French  authority,  see  A.  Es- 
mein,  Droit  Constitutionnel  (sth  ed.,  Paris,  1911),  253. 

4 The  text  of  the  proposed  measure,  in  English  translation,  will  be  found  in  J.  H. 
Humphreys,  Proportional  Representation  (London,  1911),  382-385. 


322  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

passed  a  resolution  favoring  the  establishment  of  both  scrutin  de  liste 
and  proportional  representation,  but  no  law  upon  the  subject  was 
enacted,  and  at  the  elections  of  April-May,  1910,  the  preponderating 
issue  was  unquestionably  that  of  electoral  reform.  According  to  a 
tabulation  undertaken  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  of  the  597 
deputies  chosen  at  this  time  94  had  not  declared  themselves  on  electoral 
reform;  35  were  in  favor  of  no  change  from  the  existing  system;  32  were 
in  favor  of  a  slightly  modified  scrutin  d 'arrondissement;  64  were  parti- 
sans of  the  scrutin  de  liste  pure  and  simple;  272  were  on  record  in  favor 
of  the  scrutin  de  liste  combined  with  proportional  representation;  and 
88  were  known  to  be  in  favor  of  electoral  reform,  though  not  committed 
to  any  particular  programme.  The  majority  favoring  change  of  some 
kind  was  thus  notably  large. 

360.  The  Briand  Programme. — June  30,  1910,  the  Briand  ministry 
brought  forward  a  plan  which  was  intended  as  an  alternative  to  the 
proposals  of  the  Universal  Suffrage  Committee.    The  essential  features 
of  it  were:  (i)  a  return  to  scrutin  de  liste,  with  the  department  as  the 
electoral  area,  save  that  a  department  entitled  to  more  than  fifteen 
deputies  should,  for  electoral  purposes,  be  divided,  and  one  entitled  to 
fewer  than  four  should  be  united  with  another;  (2)  an  Allotment  of  one 
deputy  to  every  70,000  inhabitants,  or  major  fraction  thereof;  (3)  the 
division  of  the  total  number  of  electors  on  the  register  within  a  depart- 
ment by  the  number  of  deputies  to  which  the  department  should  be 
entitled,  the  quotient  to  supply  the  means  by  which  to  determine  the 
number  of  deputies  returned  to  the  Chamber  from  each  competing 
ticket;  (4)  the  determination  of  this  number  by  a  division  of  the  fore- 
going quotient  into  the  average  number  of  votes  obtained  by  the  candi- 
dates on  each  competing  ticket,  thus  introducing  the  element  of  propor- 
tional representation;  (5)  the  making  up  of  tickets  in  each  department 
from  candidates  nominated  by  one  hundred  electors;  (6)  the  restriction 
of  each  elector  to  a  vote  for  but  a  single  ticket;  and  (7)  an  extension  of 
the  life  of  the  Chamber  from  four  to  six  years,  one-third  of  the  members 
to  be  chosen  biennially.    In  the  minisierial  declaration  accompanying 
the  announcement  of  this  scheme  Premier  Briand  declared  that  the 
effect  of  the  scrutin  dj  arrondissement  had  been  to  narrow  the  political 
horizon  of  the  deputies;  that  the  electoral  area  must  be  broadened  so 
that  the  interests  of  the  nation  may  be  made  to  predominate  over  those 
of  the  district;  and  that,  while  in  a  democracy  the  majority  must  rule, 
the  Government  was  favorable  to  proportional  representation  in  so  far 
as  the  adoption  of  that  principle  can  prevent  the  suppression  of  really 
important  minorities. 

361.  The  Electoral  Reform  Bill  of  1912.— In  February,  1911,  while 


THE  PRESIDENT,  THE  MINISTRY,  AND  PARLIAMENT       323 

the  Briand  Electoral  Reform  Bill  was  pending,  there  occurred  a  change 
of  ministries.  The  Monis  government  which  succeeded  maintained, 
during  its  brief  tenure  (March- June,  1911),  the  sympathetic  attitude 
which  had  been  exhibited  by  its  predecessor,  and  at  the  beginning  of 
the  period  the  Commission  du  Suffrage  Universel  laid  before  the  Cham- 
ber the  draft  of  a  new  bill  whereby  the  details  of  the  proportional  plan 
were  brought  back  into  closer  accord  with  those  of  the  Belgian  system. 
During  the  period  of  the  Caillaux  ministry  (June,  1911,  to  January,  1912) 
there  was  continued  discussion,  but  meager  progress.  The  Poincare 
ministry,  established  at  the  beginning  of  1912,  declared  that  the  nation 
had  expressed  forcefully  its  desire  for  far-reaching  reform  and  promised 
that,  in  pursuance  of  the  work  already  accomplished  by  the  parlia- 
mentary commission,  it  would  take  steps  to  carry  a  measure  of  reform 
which  should  "secure  a  more  exact  representation  for  political  parties 
and  lend  those  who  are  elected  the  freedom  that  is  required  for  the  sub- 
ordination of  local  interests  in  all  cases  to  the  national  interest."  During 
the  earlier  months  of  1912  consideration  of  the  subject  was  pressed  in 
the  Chamber  and  July  10  the  whole  of  the  Government's  Electoral 
Reform  Bill  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  339  to  217.  At  the  date  of  writing 
(October,  1912)  the  measure  is  pending  in  the  Senate.  The  bill  as 
passed  in  the  Chamber  comprises  essentially  the  Briand  proposals  of 
19  lo.1  Through  the  revival  of  scrutin  de  liste,  with  a  large  department 
or  a  group  of  small  ones  as  the  electoral  area,  and  with  the  device  of 
JThe  most  systematic  account  of  the  electoral  franchise  in  France  since  1780  is 
A.  Tecklenburg,  Die  Entwickelung  des  Wahlrechts  in  Frankreich  seit  1789  (Tii- 
bingen,  1911).  The  French  electoral  system  is  described  at  length  in  E.  Pierre, 
Code  des  Elections  politiques  (Paris,  1893);  Chaute-Grellet,  Trait6  des  elections, 
2  vols.  (Paris,  1897);  M.  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  l'administration  franchise  ($th  ed., 
Paris,  1905),  I.,  1208-1244.  The  literature  of  the  subject  of  electoral  reform  is  very 
extensive.  Mention  may  be  made  of  C.  Benoist,  Pour  la  reforme  electorate  (Paris, 
1908);  J.  L.  Chardon,  La  reforme  electorate  en  France  (Paris,  1910);  J.  L.  Breton, 
La  reforme  electorate  (Paris,  1910);  C.  Francois,  La  representation  des  inte"rets  dans 
les  corps  elus  (Paris,  1900);  F.  Faure,  La  legislature  qui  finit  et  la  r6forme  electorate, 
in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Dec.  10,  1909;  Marion,  Comment  faire  la 
reforme  electorate,  ibid.,  Feb.  10  and  March  10,  1910;  M.  Deslanders,  La  reforme 
electorate,  ibid.,  July  10,  1910;  A.  Varenne,  La  r^forme  electorate  d'abord,  ibid., 
Nov.  10,  1910;  G.  Lachapelle,  La  discussion  du  projet  de  re"forme  electorate,  ibid., 
May  10,  1912;  F.  Faure,  Le  vote  de  la  relorme  electorate,  ibid.,  Aug.  10,  1912 
(contains  the  text  of  the  Electoral  Law) ;  L.  Milhac,  Les  partis  politiques  francais 
dans  leur  programme  et  devant  le  suffrage,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques , 
July  15,  1910;  G.  Scelle,  La  representation  politique,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public, 
July-Sept.,  IQII;  L.  Marin,  Le  vote  personnel,  in  La  Grande  Revue,  March  25, 
1911;  and  G.  Trouillot,  La  reforme  electorate  au  Senat,  ibid.,  Sept.  25, 1912.  The  text 
of  the  bill  of  191 2  is  to  be  found  also  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  July-Sept.,  1912.  On 
the  question  of  proportional  representation  see  G.  Tronqual,  La  representation  pro- 
portionnelle  devant  le  parlement  francais  (Poitiers,  1910);  F.  L6pine,  La  repr6sen- 


324  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

representation  of  minorities  added,  the  measure,  in  the  event  of  its 
probable  final  enactment,  will  largely  transform  the  conditions  under 
which  the  parliamentary  elections  of  to-day  are  conducted. 

tation  proportionnelle  et  sa  solution  (Paris,  1911);  N.  Saripolos,  La  democratic  et 
I'&ection  proportionnelle  (Paris,  1900);  G.  Lachapelle,  La  representation  propor- 
tionnelle (Paris,  1910);  ibid.,  Representation  proportionnelle,  in  Revue  de  Paris, 
Nov.  15,  1910;  ibid.,  L'Application  de  la  representation  proportionnelle,  in  Revue 
Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Dec.  10,  1910.  See  also  Anon.,  La  sophistication  du 
suffrage  universel,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July,  1909,  and  May,  1910; 
E.  Zevort,  La  France  sous  le  regime  du  suffrage  universel  (Paris,  1894).  The 
subject  of  proportional  representation  in  France  is  fully  discussed  in  a  Report  of 
the  British  Royal  Commission  on  Electoral  Systems  (1910).  Report,  Cd.  5,163; 
Evidence,  Cd.  5,352. 


CHAPTER  XVH 
PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE-POLITICAL  PARTIES 

I.    ORGANIZATION  AND  WORKINGS  or  THE  CHAMBERS 

362.  Sessions. — By  the  constitutional  law  of  July  16,  1875,  it  is 
required  that  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  the  Senate  shall  assemble 
annually  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  January,  unless  convened  at  an 
earlier  date  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  and  that  they  shall  con- 
tinue in  session  through  at  least  five  months  of  each  year.   The  President 
may  convene  an  extraordinary  session,  and  is  obligated  to  do  so  if 
at  any  time  during  a  recess  an  absolute  majority  of  both  chambers 
request  it.    The  President  may  adjourn  the  chambers,  but  not  more 
than  twice  during  the  same  session,  and  never  to  exceed  one  month. 
The  sessions  of  the  Deputies  are  held  in  the  Palais  Bourbon,  situated 
in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  a  group  of  ministerial  buildings  at 
the  end  of  the  Boulevard  St.  Germain,  directly  across»the  Seine  from  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde;  those  of  the  Senate,  in  the  Palais  du  Luxembourg. 
The  sittings  are  by  law  required  to  be  public,  though  there  is  provision 
for  occasional  secret  sessions.    Sine  3  January  i,  1907,  deputies  have 
received  15,000  francs  a  year  (increased  by  law  of  November,  1906, 
from  9,000) ;  and  they  are  entitled,  on  payment  of  a  nominal  sum,  to 
travel  free  on  all  French  railways.    The  emoluments  of  senators  are 
identical  with  those  of  deputies. 

363.  Officers,  Bureaus,  and  Committees. — The  presiding  officer  of  the 
Deputies  is  known  as  the  president.    He  is  elected  by  the  Chamber  and, 
far  from  being  a  mere  moderator,  as  is  the  Speaker  of  the  British  House 
of  Commons,  he  is  ordinarily  an  aggressive  party  man,  not  indisposed 
to  quit  the  chair  to  participate  in  debate,  and  therefore  bearing  an  inter- 
esting resemblance  to  the  Speaker  of  the  American  House  of  Representa- 
tives.    Besides  the  president,  there  are  four  vice-presidents,  eight 
secretaries,  and  three  questors,  all  chosen  by  the  Chamber.    The  vice- 
presidents  replace  the  president  upon  occasion;  the  secretaries  (of  whom 
half  must  always  be  on  duty  when  the  Chamber  is  in  session)  super- 
vise the  records  of  the  meetings  and  count  the  votes  when  there  is  a 
division;  the  questors  have  in  charge  the  Chamber's  finances.    Collec- 
tively, this  group  of  sixteen  officials  comprises  what  is  known  as  the 

325 


326  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

"  bureau"  of  the  Chamber.  It  manages  the  business  of  the  body  during 
a  session  and,  if  need  be,  acts  in  its  name  during  a  recess. 

Every  month  during  the  course  of  a  session  the  entire  membership 
of  the  Chamber  is  divided  by  lot  into  eleven  other  bureaus  of  equal 
size.  These  bureaus  meet  from  time  to  time  separately  to  examine 
the  credentials  of  members,  to  give  formal  consideration  to  bills  which 
have  not  yet  been  referred  to  a  committee,  and,  most  important  of  all, 
to  select  one  of  their  number  to  serve  on  each  of  the  committees  of  the 
Chamber.  In  the  case  of  very  important  committees,  the  bureaus 
may  be  instructed  by  the  Chamber  to  designate  two  members,  or  even 
three,  each.  Thus,  the  Budget  Committee  contains  three  represent- 
atives of  each  bureau.  This  committee  and  another  constituted  to 
audit  the  accounts  of  the  Government  are  created  for  a  year.  Others 
serve  a  single  month.  Theoretically,  indeed,  every  measure  is  referred 
to  a  committee  constituted  specifically  for  the  purpose;  but  practically 
the  consequence  of  such  a  procedure  would  be  confusion  so  gross  that 
the  greater  committees,  as  those  on  labor,  railways,  and  the  army,  are 
allowed  to  acquire  some  substantial  measure  of  permanence.  Committee 
positions  are  quite  generally  objects  of  barter  on  the  part  of  party  groups 
and  leaders.1 

364.  Procedure. — Immediately  upon  assembling,  each  of  the  chamoers 
validates  the  elections  of  its  own  members,  chooses  its  bureau  of  presi- 
dent, vice-presidents,  secretaries,  and  questors,  and  adopts  its  own 
rules  of  procedure.  At  an  early  date  the  premier  communicates  orally  a 
"ministerial  declaration,"  in  which  are  outlined  the  policies  to  which 
the  Government  is  committed ;  and  certain  of  the  measures  therein  pro- 
posed are  likely  to  take  precedence  in  the  ensuing  deliberations.  The 
hall  in  which  each  body  sits  is  semi-circular,  with  as  many  seats  and 
desks  as  there  are  members  to  be  accommodated.  In  the  centre  stands 
a  raised  arm-chair  for  the  use  of  the  president,  and  in  front  of  it  is  a 
platform,  or  "tribune,"  which  every  member  who  desires  to  speak  is 
required  to  mount.  On  either  side  of  the  tribune  are  stationed  stenog- 
raphers, whose  reports  of  the  proceedings  are  printed  each  morning  in 
the  Journal  Officiel.  The  first  tier  of  seats  in  the  semi-circle,  facing  the 
tribune,  is  reserved  for  the  Government,  i.  e.,  the  members  of  the 
ministry;  behind  are  ranged  the  remaining  members  of  the  Chamber, 
with  the  radicals  on  the  president's  left  and  the  conservatives  on  his 
right. 

Of  the  bureaus  into  which,  at  the  beginning  of  each  month,  the  mem- 
bers of  each  chamber  are  divided,  there  are,  as  has  been  said,  eleven  in 

1  A.  de  la  Berge,  Les  grands  comit6s  parlementaires,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes, 
Dec.  i,  1889. 


PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE— POLITICAL  PARTIES         327 

the  Deputies;  in  the  Senate  there  are  nine.  When  a  bill  is  introduced  it 
is  referred  first  of  all  to  these  bureaus,  each  of  which  designates  one  or 
more  commissioners,  who,  acting  together  as  a  committee,  are  expected 
to  make  a  careful  examination  of  the  measure.  The  report  of  this 
committee  is  printed  and  distributed,  whereupon  general  discussion 
begins  in  the  chamber.  Every  measure  must  pass  two  readings  in  each 
chamber,  with  an  interval  of  five  days,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  a 
majority  vote.  A  member  wishing  to  take  part  in  the  debate  indicates 
his  desire  by  inscribing  his  name  on  lists  kept  by  the  secretaries.  On 
the  motion  of  any  member,  the  closure  may  be  applied  and  a  vote 
ordered.  The  division  may  be  taken  by  a  show  of  hands,  by  rising,  or 
by  a  ballot  in  which  a  white  voting  paper  denotes  an  affirmative,  and  a 
blue  one  a  negative,  vote.  Voting  by  proxy,  long  permitted,  has  been 
recently  abolished.  No  decision  is  valid  unless  an  absolute  majority 
of  the  members  (151  in  the  Senate  and  299  in  the  Deputies)  has  partici- 
pated in  the  vote.  In  the  upper  branch  proceedings  are  apt  to  be  slow 
and  dignified;  in  the  lower  they  are  more  animated,  and  not  infre- 
quently tempestuous.  The  duty  of  keeping  order  at  the  sittings  falls 
to  the  president.  In  aggravated  cases  he  is  empowered,  with  the 
consent  of  a  majority  of  the  chamber,  to  administer  a  reprimand  carry- 
ing with  it  temporary  exclusion  from  the  sessions.1 

365.  Powers  and  Functions:  the  National  Assembly. — Speaking 
broadly,  the  functions  of  the  French  chambers  are  three-fold — constit- 
uent, elective,  and  legislative.  The  first  two  are  required  to  be  exercised 
by  the  two  houses  conjointly.  By  the  constitutional  law  of  February  25, 
1875,  there  is  provided  the  only  means  whereby  the  constitution  of  the 
Republic  may  be  amended.  "The  chambers,"  it  is  stipulated,  "shall 
have  the  right  by  separate  resolutions,  taken  in  each  by  an  absolute 
majority  of  votes,  either  upon  their  own  initiative  or  upon  the  request 
of  the  President  of  the  Republic,  to  declare  a  revision  of  the  constitu- 
tional laws  necessary.  After  each  of  the  two  chambers  shall  have  come 
to  this  decision,  they  shall  meet  together  in  National  Assembly  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  revision.  The  acts  affecting  revision  of  the  constitutional 
laws,  in  whole  or  in  part,  shall  be  passed  by  an  absolute  majority  of  the 
members  composing  the  National  Assembly."2  The  power  of  con- 
stitutional amendment  is  therefore  vested  absolutely  in  the  parliamen- 

1  A.  P.  Usher,  Procedure  in  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in  Political  Science 
Quarterly,   Sept.,  1906;  J.  S.  Crawford,  A  Day  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in 
Gunton's  Magazine,  Oct.,  1901;  M.  R.  Bonnard,  Les  modifications  du  reglement 
de  la  Chambre  des  Deputes,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  Oct.-Dec.,  1911.     The 
standard  treatise  on  French  parliamentary  procedure  is  J.  Poudra  et  E.  Pierre, 
Traite"  pratique  de  droit  parlementaire,  8  vols.  (Versailles,  1878-1880.) 

2  Art.  8.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  288. 


328  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

tary  chambers,  under  the  requirement  simply  that  it  be  exercised  in 
joint  session.  The  only  limitation  that  has  been  imposed  on  parlia- 
mentary omnipotence  in  this  direction  is  a  clause  adopted  in  an  amend- 
ment of  August  13,  1884,  to  the  effect  that  "the  republican  form  of 
government  shall  not  be  made  the  subject  of  a  proposed  revision."  l 
As  in  the  British  system,  constituent  and  legislative  powers  are  lodged 
in  the  same  body  of  men;  and  not  merely  the  powers  of  constitution- 
making,  but  the  exclusive  right  to  pronounce  upon  the  constitutionality 
or  unconstitutionality  of  legislation.  The  principal  difference  is  that, 
whereas  the  British  Parliament  exercises  the  sum  total  of  its  powers  hi 
an  unvarying  manner,  the  French,  when  acting  in  its  constituent 
capacity,  follows  a  specially  designed  procedure. 

One  other  function  the  two  chambers  sitting  conjointly  possess,  i.  e., 
that  of  electing  the  President  of  the  Republic.  Under  normal  con- 
ditions, the  chambers  are  called  together  in  National  Assembly  to  choose 
a  President  one  month  or  more  before  the  expiration  of  the  seven-year 
presidential  term.  In  the  event  of  vacancy  by  death,  by  resignation, 
or  by  reason  of  any  other  unanticipated  circumstance,  the  meeting  of 
the  Assembly  takes  place  forthwith,  without  summons.2  Election  is 
by  ballot,  and  by  absolute  majority  of  the  members.  All  meetings 
of  the  National  Assembly  are  held,  not  in  Paris,  but  in  the  old  royal 
palace  at  Versailles,  which  indeed  was  the  sole  seat  of  the  present 
republican  government  until  1879.  No  elective  session  may  exceed 
in  length  the  five  months  allotted  to  an  ordinary  legislative  session. 

356.  Legislation  and  Special  Powers. — The  two  chambers  possess 
concurrent  powers  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  initiation,  the  enactment, 
and  the  amending  of  laws,  save  that  money  bills  must  be  introduced 
in  and  passed  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  before  being  considered  in 
the  upper  branch.  Except  for  this  limitation,  measures  may  be  pre- 
sented in  either  house,  by  the  ministers  in  the  name  of  the  President, 
or  by  private  members.  The  vast  fabric  of  Napoleonic  law  which  has 
survived  to  the  present  day  hi  France  has  narrowed  perceptibly  the 
range  of  legislative  activity  under  the  Republic.  During  the  first 
generation  after  1871  few  great  statutes  were  enacted,  save  those  of  a 
constitutional  character.  In  our  own  day,  however,  the  phenomenal 
expansion  of  social  and  industrial  legislation,  which  has  been  a  striking 
feature  of  the  public  life  of  most  European  nations,  has  imparted  a  new 
vigor  and  productiveness  to  French  parliamentary  activity. 

Each  of  the  chambers  possesses  certain  functions  peculiar  to  itself. 
As 


i 


Aside  from  the  initiation  of  money  bills,  the  principal  such  function 


1  Art.  8.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  294. 

1  Law  of  July  16,  1875,  art.  3.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  291 


PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE— POLITICAL  PARTIES         329 

of  the  DepiUies  is  the  bringing  of  charges  of  impeachment  against  the 
President  of  ^ministers.  The  Senate  possesses  the  exclusive  power  to 
try  cases  of  impeachment.  It  is  given  the  right  to  assent  or  to  withhold 
its  assent  when  the  President  proposes  to  dissolve  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  before  the  expiration  of  its  term.  And  by  decree  of  the  Pres- 
ident, issued  in  the  Council  of  Ministers,  it  may  be  constituted  a  court 
of  justice  to  try  any  person  accused  of  attempts  upon  the  safety  of  the 
state.1 

II.  POLITICAL  PARTIES  SINCE  1871 

367.  Republicans  and  Conservatives. — In  its  larger  aspects  the 
alignment  of  political  parties  in  France  to-day  dates  from  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  In  the  National  Assembly  of  1848 — the  first 
representative  body  elected  in  France  by  direct  universal  suffrage — 
the  line  was  sharply  drawn  between  the  republicans  of  the  Left,  who 
wished  to  maintain  the  Republic  and  with  it  a  liberal  measure  of 
democracy,  and  the  reactionaries  of  the  Right,  who  began  by  insist- 
ing upon  a  restoration  of  clerical  privilege  and  bourgeois  rule  and 
ended,  in  the  days  of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  by  clamoring  for  a 
restoration  of  monarchy  itself.  After  the  coup  d'etat  of  1851  both 
groups  were  silenced,  though  even  in  the  politically  stagnant  era  of  the 
early  Empire  they  did  not  lose  altogether  their  identity.  With  the  re- 
vival, however,  after  1860,  of  a  vigorous  political  life  the  two  worked 
together,  and  with  success,  to  accomplish  the  overthrow  of  the  personal 
government  of  Napoleon  III.  Upon  the  collapse  of  the  Empire  in 
1870  the  original  cleavage  reappeared.  The  National  Assembly  elected 
in  1871  was  divided  broadly  into  Republicans  and  Conservatives 
(which  name  gradually  replaced  that  of  Reactionaries),  and  dur- 
ing the  five  years  covered  by  the  life  of  this  extremely  important  body 
these  two  great  groups  struggled  continuously  over  the  supreme 
question  of  the  day,  i.  e.,  the  style  of  government  which  should  be 
adopted  permanently  for  France.  Each  of  the  groups  comprised  a 
variety  of  elements.  To  the  Republicans  belonged  the  Radical  Ex- 
treme Left  of  Gambetta,  the  Left  of  Grevy,  Freycinet,  and  Loubet, 
and  the  Centre  Left  of  Thiers  and  Jules  Simon.  To  the  Conservatives 
belonged  the  Legitimate  Extreme  Right,  an  Orleanist  Centre  Right, 
and,  eventually,  the  Imperialists.  Following  the  definite  establish- 
ment, in  1875,  of  the  republican  constitution,  the  lines  by  which  these 
various  elements  had  been  marked  off  grew  less  distinct,  and  Republi- 
cans and  Conservatives  acquired  in  each  case  a  more  homogeneous 
character. 

1 Y.  Guyot,  Relations  between  the  French  Senate  and  Chamber  of  Deputies,  in 
Contemporary  Review,  Feb.,  1910. 


330  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

368.  Rise  of  the  Radicals. — After  the  first  election  under  the  new 
constitution — that  of  1876 — the  Senate  remained  in  the  control  of  the 
Conservatives,  but  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  was  found  to  contain  a 
Republican  majority  of  more  than  two  to  one.  From  that  day  until 
the  present  the  Republican  ascendancy  in  the  lower  house  has  been 
maintained  uninterruptedly;  and  since  1882  there  has  been  likewise 
always  a  Republican  majority  in  the  Senate.  It  is  to  be  observed,  of 
course,  that  Republican  control  in  both  chambers  has  meant  regularly 
not  the  absolute  dominance  of  a  single  compact  party  group,  but  the 
preponderance  of  a  coalition  of  two  or  more  groups  broadly  to  be 
described  as  "republican."  During  the  early  eighties  there  sprang 
up  a  flourishing  group  which,  reviving  the  original  programme  of 
Gambetta,  assumed  the  name  Radical,  and  in  the  elections  of  1885 
this  group  acquired  such  a  quota  of  seats  in  the  Chamber  (150)  as  to 
render  it  impossible  for  the  Republicans  alone  to  retain  control. 
Thereafter  there  were  three  principal  party  groups — the  Conserva- 
tives and  the  two  republican  groups,  the  Republicans  proper  and  the 
Radicals.  No  one  of  the  three  being  sufficiently  strong  to  obtain  a 
majority  which  would  enable  it  to  rule  alone,  the  politics  of  a  long 
succession  of  years  turned  upon  the  adoption  of  one  or  the  other  of 
two  lines  of  tactics — the  coalition  of  the  two  republican  divisions  to  the 
end  that  they  might  rule  as  against  a  Conservative  minority  (the  so- 
called  policy  of  "republican  concentration"),  and  the  allying  of  one  of 
these  groups  with  the  Right  against  the  other  Republican  group 
(spoken  of  commonly  as  a  "pacification").  The  first  " concentration  " 
ministry  was  that  of  Brisson,  formed  in  March,  1885;  the  first  "pacifi- 
cation" ministry  was  that  of  Rouvier,  formed  in  1887.  In  the  middle 
of  the  nineties  some  attempts  were  made  to  create  and  maintain  homo- 
geneous ministries.  The  Bourgeois  ministry  of  1895-1896  was  com- 
posed entirely  of  Radicals  and  the  Meline  ministry  of  1896-1898  of 
Moderate  Republicans.  But  at  the  elections  of  1898  the  Repub- 
lican position  in  the  Chamber  broke  down  and  it  was  neces- 
sary to  return,  with  the  Dupuy  ministry,  to  the  policy  of  con- 
centration. 

Meanwhile,  in  the  early  nineties,  from  the  Conservative  and  Repub- 
lican extremes  respectively  had  been  detached  two  new  party  groups. 
From  the  ranks  of  the  Conservatives  had  sprung  a  body  of  Catholics 
who,  under  papal  injunction,  had  declared  their  purpose  to  rally  to  the 
support  of  the  Republicans;  whence  they  acquired  the  designation  of 
the  "Rallies."  And  from  the  Radical  party  had  broken  off  a  body  of 
socialists  of  such  consequence  that  in  the  elections  of  1893  it  succeeded 
in  carrying  fifty  seats. 


PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE— POLITICAL  PARTIES         331 

359.  The  Bloc. — A  new  era  in  the  history  of  French  political  parties 
was  marked  by  the  elections  of  May,  1898.    Some  250  seats,  and  with 
them  the  effectual  control  of  the  Chamber,  were  acquired  by  the  Radi- 
cals, the  Socialists,  and  an  intermediary  group  of  Radical-Socialists. 
The  Moderate  Republicans,  to  whom  had  been  given  recently  the  name 
of  Progressives,  were  reduced  to  200;  while  the  Right  retained  but  100. 
The  Socialists  alone  polled  nearly  twenty  per  cent  of  the  total  popular 
vote.     The  remarkable  agitation  by  which  the  Dreyfus  affair  was 
attended  had  the  effect  of  consolidating  further  the  parties  of  the  Left, 
and  the  bloc  which  resulted  not  only  has  subsisted  steadily  from  that 
day  to  the  present  but  has  controlled  very  largely  the  policies  of  the 
government.     The  first  conspicuous  leader  and  spokesman  of  the 
coalition  was  Waldeck-Rousseau,  premier  from  1899  to  1902,  and  its 
first  great  achievement  was  the  separation  of  church  and  state,  accom- 
plished through  the  means  of  the  Law  of  Associations  of  July  i,  1901, 
the  abrogation  of  the  Concordat,  December  9,  1905,  and  the  law  of 
January  2,   1907,  restricting  further  the  privileges  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  France.    A  socialist  now  appeared  for  the  first 
time  in  the  cabinet.    At  the  elections  of  April,  1902,  the  policies 
of  the  Government  were  vindicated  by  the  return  of  321  avowed 
"  ministerialists"  and  of  but   268  representatives   of   the    opposi- 
tion. 

360.  The  Elections  of  1906. — June  3,  1902,  the  longest-lived  min- 
istry since  the  Third  Republic  was  established  was  brought  to  an  end 
by  the  voluntary  retirement  of  Waldeck-Rousseau.    The  new  premier, 
Combes,  was  a  member  of  the  Radical  party,  and  the  anti-clerical, 
radical  policies  of  the  preceding  government  were  maintained  through- 
out the  ensuing  two  and  a  half  years,  as  also  they  were  during  the 
premiership  of  Rouvier  (1905-1906).    In  March,  1906,  a  new  ministry, 
in  which  Clemenceau  was  actual  chief,  was  formed  with  the  Radical 
Sarrien  as  premier,  and  at  the  elections  which  came  two  months  later 
the  groups  of  the  Left  won  another  signal  victory.    Prior  to  the  bal- 
loting the  majority  in  support  of  the  radical  policy  of  the  Government 
bloc  could  muster  in  the  Chamber  some  340  votes;  afterwards,  it  could 
muster  at  least  400.    The  Right  retained  its  numerical  strength  (about 
130),  but  the  extreme  Left  made  decided  gains  at  the  expense  of  the 
moderates,  or  Progressives.     The  number  of  Progressive  seats,  120 
prior  to  the  election,  was  reduced  by  half;  while  the  aggregate  of 
Socialist  and  Radical-Socialist  seats  rose  to  230.   On  all  sides  Moderate 
Republicanism  fell  before  the  assaults  of  Socialism.    At  the  same  time 
it  was  demonstrated  unmistakably  that  the  anti-clerical  measures 
of  the   recent  governments  were  in   substantial   accord  with  the 


33 2  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

will  of  the  nation.    October  25,  1906,  Clemenceau  assumed  the  pre- 
miership. 

361.  The  Elections  of  1910. — The  Clemenceau  ministry,  which 
survived  until  July,  1909,  adopted  a  programme  which  was  more 
frankly  socialistic  than  was  that  of  any  of  its  predecessors.  It  added 
to  the  system  of  state-owned  railways  the  Great  Western  Line;  it 
inaugurated  a  graduated  income  tax  and  put  the  measure  in  the  way  of 
enactment  at  the  hand  of  the  Chamber;  it  carried  fresh  and  more 
rigcrous  legislation  in  hostility  to  clericalism;  and,  in  general,  it  gave 
free  expression  to  the  unquestionable  trend  of  the  France  of  to-day 
away  from  the  individualism  of  the  Revolutionary  period  in  the 
direction  of  the  ideals  of  collectivism.  The  Briand  ministry  by  which 
it  was  succeeded  followed  in  the  same  lines,  three  of  its  members, 
indeed,  being  active  socialists.  Prior  to  the  elections  of  April-May, 
1910,  there  took  place  some  readjustment  of  political  forces,  but,  on 
the  whole,  no  change  of  large  importance.  The  bloc,  however,  more 
than  once  showed  signs  of  breaking  up,  and  the  majority  of  the  party 
groups  arrived  at  the  electoral  season  devoid  of  harmony  and  paralyzed 
by  uncertainty  of  policy.  The  Radicals  were  divided  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  income-tax;  the  Socialists,  upon  the  question  of  the  party's 
attitude  toward  trade-unions;  and  all  parties,  upon  the  issue  of  pro- 
portional representation.  That  the  voters  were  no  less  bewildered 
than  were  the  party  leaders  appeared  from  the  fact  that  in  231  con- 
stituencies— almost  an  unprecedented  number  1 — second  ballotings 
were  required.  With  the  issues  so  confused,  the  results  could  hardly 
prove  of  large  significance.  The  lines  which  separate  party  groups 
to-day  in  France  are  not  infrequently  both  ill-defined  and  shifting, 
with  the  consequence  that  it  is  not  possible  to  express  party  strength 
by  exact  numbers,  as  may  be  done  in  the  case  of  the  parties  of  Great 
Britain  or  of  the  United  States.  A  deputy  may  even  belong  to  two 
groups  at  one  time.  The  composition  of  the  Chamber  following  the 
elections  of  1910  can  be  stated,  therefore,  only  approximately.  Com- 
posing the  Right  were  (i)  the  Right  proper,  19;  (2)  the  Action  Liberale 
Populaire — organized  originally  to  combat  the  radicalism  of  Waldeck- 
Rousseau,  34;  (3)  the  Progressives,  now  to  be  identified  with  the  Right, 
76 — a  total  of  129.  Identified  with  the  Left  were  (i)  the  Republicans, 
73;  (2)  the  Radicals,  112;  and  (3)  the  Radical-Socialists,  149 — a  total 
of  334.  Comprising  the  Extreme  Left  were  the  Socialists  (Independent 
30;  Unified,  75),  aggregating  105.  Finally,  of  Independents  there 
were  upwards  of  20.  The  continued  preponderance  of  the  Left  was 
assured,  although  to  prolong  their  mastery  of  the  situation  the  Rad- 
1  Absolutely  so,  save  for  the  scnUin  de  liste  election  of  1885. 


PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE— POLITICAL  PARTIES         333 

icals  and  Radical-Socialists  fell  under  the  necessity  of  securing  the 
support  of  either  the  Republicans  or  the  Independent  Socialists.1 

362.  Changes  since  1871. — "The  political  history  of  France  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Republic,"  says  a  scholarly  French  observer, 
"presents,  instead  of  an  alternation  between  two  parties  of  opposing 
programmes,  like  those  of  Belgium  or  England,  a  continual  evolution 
along  one  line,  the  constant  growth  of  the  strength  of  parties  which 
represent  the  democratic,  anti-clerical  tendency."  2    The  fundamental 
division  of  Conservative  and  Republican  persists,  but  both  of  these 
terms  have  long  since  lost  their  original  definiteness  of  meaning.    The 
Conservatives  have  ceased,  in  large  part,  to  be  "reactionaries."    Few 
of  them  are  even  royalists,  and  the  old  distinction  of  Legitimist, 
Orleanist,  and  Bonapartist  has  disappeared  entirely.    The  Right  is 
essentially  "republican,"  as  is  evidenced  by  the  further  fact  that  the 
majority  of  its  members  in  the  Chamber  are  Progressives,  whose 
forerunners  composed  the  real  Republican  party  of  a  generation  ago. 
The  Republican  groups  of  to-day  comprise  simply  those  numerous 
and  formidable  political  elements  which  are  more  republican — that  is 
to  say,  more  radical — than  are  the  adherents  of  the  Right.     Among 
themselves,  however,  they  represent  a  very  wide  gradation  of  rad- 
icalism. 

363.  French  Socialism. — The  history  of  socialism  in  France  since 
1871  has  been  stormy.     During  the  seventies  proselyting  effort  was 
directed  chiefly  toward  the  influencing  of  the  trade-unions  to  declare 
for  socialism.    In  1879  the  general  trade-union  congress  at  Marseilles 
took  the  desired  step,  but  in  the  congress  of  the  following  year  at 
Havre  there  arose  a  schism  between  the  " collectivists  "  and  the  "co- 
operatives "  which  in  reality  has  never  been  healed.    During  the  eight- 
ies and  nineties  the  process  of  disintegration  continued,  and  there 
came  to  be  a  half-dozen  socialist  parties,  besides  numerous  local 
groups  of  independents.    During  the  years  1898-1901  continued  effort 
was  made  to  bring  the  various  socialist  elements  into  some  sort  of 
union,  and  in  1900  a  national  congress  of  all  French  socialist  parties 

1  The  political  history  of  the  period  since  the  elections  of  1910  has  been  remarkable 
by  reason  chiefly  of  the  absorption  of  public  attention  by  the  issues  of  electoral 
reform  and  labor  legislation.    Embarrassed  by  interpellations  with  reference  to  its 
ecclesiastical  policy,  the  Briand  ministry  (reconstituted  in  November,   1910)  re- 
tired in  February,  1911.    The  Monis  government  which  succeeded  lacked  coher- 
ence, as  also  did  the  ministry  of  Caillaux  (June,  1911  to  January,  1912).    The 
cardinal  achievement  of  the  Poincare"  ministry  has  been  the  carrying  of  the  Elec- 
toral Reform  Bill  of  1912  in  the  lower  chamber.     See  p.  323. 

2  C.  Seignobos,  The  Political  Parties  of  France,  in  International  Monthly,  Aug., 
1901,  155- 


334  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  organizations  was  held  at  Paris.  An  incident  of  the  Dreyfus  con- 
troversy was  the  elevation  of  an  independent  socialist,  Etienne  Mill- 
erand,  to  a  portfolio  in  the  ministry  of  Waldeck-Rousseau,  and  this 
event  became  the  occasion  of  a  new  socialist  breach.  The  Parti  Social- 
ist Francais,  led  by  the  elequent  Jaures,  approved  Millerand's  op- 
portunism; the  Parti  Socialist  de  France  opposed.  In  1905,  however, 
these  two  bodies  were  amalgamated  in  the  Parti  Socialist  of  the  pres- 
ent day,  with  a  programme  which  calls  for  the  socializing  of  the  means 
of  production  and  exchange,  i.  e.,  the  transforming  of  the  capitalistic 
organization  of  society  into  a  collectivist  or  communistic  organization. 
The  means  by  which  the  party  proposes  to  bring  about  the  transforma- 
tion is  the  industrial  and  political  organization  of  the  working  classes. 
In  respect  to  its  aim,  its  ideals,  and  its  means,  the  French  Socialist 
party,  while  ready  to  support  the  immediate  reforms  demanded  by 
laboring  people,  is  to  a  greater  degree  than  the  German  Social  Democ- 
racy a  party  of  class  struggle  and  revolution.  In  1885,  when  the 
French  socialists  waged  their  first  campaign  in  a  parliamentary  elec- 
tion, the  aggregate  number  of  socialist  votes  was  but  30,000.  By  1889 
the  number  had  been  increased  to  120,000;  by  1898  to  700,000;  and  by 
1906  to  1,000,000.  At  the  election  of  1910  the  popular  vote  was  in- 
creased by  200,000,  and  the  number  of  socialist  deputies  was  raised  to  a 
total  of  105.  Within  recent  years  socialism,  formerly  confined  almost 
wholly  to  the  towns  and  cities,  has  begun  to  take  hold  among  the 
wage-earners,  and  even  the  small  proprietors,  in  the  rural  portions  of 
the  country.1 

1  The  best  accounts  in  English  of  the  French  parties  and  party  system  are  Lowell, 
Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  Chap.  2;  Bodley,  France,  Book  IV.,  Chaps.  1-8;  and 
C.  Seignobos,  The  Political  Parties  of  France,  in  International  Monthly,  Aug.,  1901. 
The  last-mentioned  is  brief,  but  excellent.  A  valuable  work  is  P.  Laffitte,  Le  suffrage 
universel  et  la  regime  parlementaire  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1889).  Among  useful  articles 
may  be  mentioned:  J.  Meline,  Les  partis  dans  la  republique,  in  Revue  P'olitique 
et  Parlementaire,  Jan.,  1900;  M.  H.  Doniol,  Les  idees  politiques  et  les  partis  en 
France  durant  le  XIX.e  siecle,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  May-June,  1902;  and 
A.  Charpentier,  Radicaux  et  socialistes  de  1902  a  1912,  in  La  Nouvelle  Revue, 
May  i,  1912.  On  socialism  in  France  see  J.  Peixotto,  The  French  Revolution 
and  Modern  French  Socialism  (New  York,  1901);  R.  T.  Ely,  French  and  German 
Socialism  in  Modern  Times  (New  York,  1883);  P.  Louis,  Histoire  du  socialisme 
francais  (Paris,  1901);  E.  Villey,  Les  perils  dela  democratic  francaise  (Paris,  1910); 
and  A.  Fouillee,  La  democratic  politique  et  sociale  en  France  (Paris,  1910). 


CHAPTER  XVIII 
JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

I.  FRENCH  LAW 

The  law  of  France  is  of  highly  composite  origin.  Its  sources  lie 
far  back  in  the  Roman  law,  the  canon  law,  and  the  Germanic  law  of  the 
Middle  Ages.  As  late  as  1789  there  had  been  no  attempt  at  a  complete 
codification  of  it.  Under  the  operation  of  a  succession  of  royal  ordi- 
nances, criminal  law,  civil  and  criminal  procedure,  and  commercial 
law,  it  is  true,  had  been  reduced  by  the  opening  of  the  Revolution  to  a 
reasonable  measure  of  uniformity.  The  civil  law  existed  still,  however, 
in  the  form  of  "customs"  (coutumiers) ,  which  varied  widely  from 
province  to  province.  A  code  of  civil  law  which  should  be  established 
uniformly  throughout  the  realm  was  very  generally  demanded  in  the 
cahiers  of  1789,  and  such  a  code  was  specifically  promised  in  the  con- 
stitution of  1791 

364.  The  Code  Napoleon. — Toward  the  work  of  codification  some 
beginnings  were  made  by  the  first  two  Revolutionary  assemblies,  but 
the  development  of  a  coherent  plan  began  only  with  the  Convention.1 
In  the  period  of  the  Consulate  the  task  was  continued  and  progress 
was  rapid.  The  governmental  mechanism  under  the  constitution  of 
1799  was  cumbersome  enough,  but  it  was  not  ill  adapted  to  the  pros- 
ecution of  a  project  of  this  particular  character.  To  a  special  commis- 
sion, appointed  by  the  First  Consul,  was  intrusted  the  drafting  of 
the  codes,  and  the  ultimate  decision  of  difficult  or  controverted 
questions  fell  to  the  Council  of  State,  over  whose  deliberations  Na- 
poleon not  infrequently  presided  in  person.  March  31,  1804, — less 
than  two  months  before  the  proclamation  of  the  Empire, — the  new 
Code  civil  des  Franqais  was  promulgated  in  its  entirety.  Septem- 
ber 3,  1807,  the  instrument  was  given  officially  the  name  of  the  Code 
Napoleon.  By  a  measure  of  1818  the  original  designation  was  restored; 
but  a  decree  of  March  27, 1852,  revived  the  Napoleonic  nomenclature. 
Since  September  4, 1870,  the  instrument  has  been  cited  officially  simply 
as  the  Code  Civil.  In  arrangement  the  Code  resembles  the  Institutes  of 

1 H.  Cauvifcre,  L'idee  de  codification  en  France  avant  la  redaction  du  Code  Civil 
(Paris,  1911). 

335 


336  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Justinian.  In  content  it  represents  a  very  successful  combination  of 
the  two  great  elements  with  which  the  framers  had  to  deal,  i.  e.,  the 
ancient  heterogeneous  law  of  the  French  provinces  and  the  law  which 
was  originated,  or  which  was  given  shape,  during  the  course  of  the 
Revolution. 

With  the  progress  of  time  certain  defects  have  appeared  in  the  Code, 
and  since  1871  more  than  a  hundred  modifications,  some  important 
and  some  otherwise,  have  been  introduced  in  it.  Upon  the  occasion  of 
the  celebration,  in  1904,  of  the  centenary  of  its  promulgation  there 
was  created  an  extra-parliamentary  commission  charged  with  the 
task  of  preparing  a  revision  of  the  instrument.1  In  the  main,  the 
faults  to  be  corrected  are  those  which  have  arisen  inevitably  from  the 
growth  of  new  interests  and  the  development  of  new  conditions  since 
1804,  in  respect,  for  example,  to  insurance  and  to  labor.  In  Belgium 
the  Code  Napol6on  survives  to  this  day,  and  the  codes  of  Italy,  Spain, 
Portugal,  Holland,  and  many  of  the  Latin  American  states  are  mod- 
elled upon  it. 

365.  Other  Codes. — Aside  from  the  Civil  Code  of  1804,  containing 
an  aggregate  of  2,281  articles,  the  larger  part  of  the  law  of  France  to- 
day is  comprised  in  four  great  codes,  all  drawn  up  and  promulgated 
during  the  era  of  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire.  These  are:  (i)  the 
Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  of  1,042  articles,  in  1806;  (2)  the  Code  of 
Commerce,  of  648  articles,  in  1807;  (3)  the  Code  of  Criminal  Instruc- 
tion, of  648  articles,  in  1808;  and  (4)  the  Penal  Code,  of  484  articles, 
in  i8io.2  The  last  two  codes  were  submitted  to  a  general  revision  in 
1832,  and  various  supplementary  codes, — e.  g.,  the  Forest  Code,  of 
226  articles,  in  1827, — have  been  promulgated.  But  the  modifications 
introduced  since  Napoleon's  day  have  involved  principally  mere  de- 
tails or  the  addition  of  subjects  originally  omitted.  No  one  of  the  codes 
represented  at  the  time  of  its  promulgation  a  new  body  of  law.  On  the 
contrary,  all  of  them,  and  especially  the  fundamental  Civil  Code  of 
1804,  merely  reduced  existing  law  to  systematic,  written  form,  intro- 
ducing order  and  uniformity  where  previously  there  had  been  diversity 
and  even  chaos.  By  the  process  the  law  of  France  was  given  a  meas- 
ure of  unity  and  precision  which  it  had  never  before  possessed,  with 
the  disadvantage,  however,  that  it  lost  the  flexibility  and  dynamic 
character  that  once  had  belonged  to  it.  Throughout  the  past  hundred 
years  the  whole  of  France  has  been  a  country  of  one  written  law — a 

1  The  task  of  revision  has  not  yet  been  accomplished.    See  La  Code  Civil,  livre 
du  centenaire  (Paris,  1904) — a  volume  of  valuable  essays  by  French  and  foreign 
lawyers. 

2  M.  Leroy,  Le  centenaire  du  code  pe"nal,  in  Revue  de  Paris,  Feb.  i,  1911. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  337 

law  so  comprehensive  in  both  principles  and  details  that,  until  com- 
paratively recently,  there  has  seemed  to  be  small  room  or  reason  for 
its  modification.  The  history  of  French  parliamentary  assemblies 
has  been  affected  perceptibly  by  the  narrowing  of  the  field  of  legisla- 
tion arising  from  this  circumstance.1 

II.  THE  COURTS 

366.  The  Ordinary  Courts :  Justice  of  the  Peace. — In  French  prac- 
tice  the  distinction  which  is  drawn  between  private  law  and  public 
law  is  so  sharp  that  there  have  been  built  up  two  hierarchies  of 
courts — the  ordinary  and  the  administrative — each  of  which  maintains 
practically  exclusive  jurisdiction  within  an  independent  field.     The 
ordinary  courts  comprise  civil  and  criminal  tribunals,  together  with 
certain  special  tribunals,  such  as  the  tribunaux  de  commerce.    At  the 
bottom  stands  the  court  of  the  justice  of  the  peace  (juge  de  paix)  of 
the  canton.  This  tribunal  was  created  by  the  first  of  the  Revolutionary 
assemblies  and  it  has  existed  continuously  to  the  present  day.    The 
justice  of  the  peace  takes  cognizance  of  disputes  where  the  amount 
involved  does  not  exceed  600  francs,  and  of  contraventions  of  law 
punishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  fifteen  francs  or  imprisonment  not 
beyond  five  days.    In  civil  cases  involving  more  than  300  francs,  and 
in  criminal  cases  involving  imprisonment  or  a  fine  exceeding  five 
francs,  appeal  lies  to  a  higher  tribunal. 

367.  The   Courts   of  First  Instance. — Next  above  the  court  of 
the  justice  of  the  peace  stands  the  tribunal  de  premiere  instance,  or 
tribunal  d'arrondissement.    Of  such  courts  there  is,  with  a  few  excep- 
tions, one  in  each  arrondissement  or  district.     Each  consists  of  a 
president,  at  least  one'vice-president,  and  a  variable  number  of 
judges,  three  of  whom  form  a  court  with  full  powers.    To  each  is 
attached  a  procureur,  or  public  prosecutor.     This  tribunal  takes 
cognizance  of  all  kinds  of  civil  cases.    In  appeals  from  the  justices 
of  the  peace,  actions  relating  to  personal  property  to  the  value  of 
1500  francs,  actions  relating  to  land  to  the  value  of  sixty  francs  per 
year,  and  all  cases  of  registration,  there  lies  no  appeal  from  its  de- 
cisions.   The  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  penal  cases  extends  to  all 
offenses  of  the  class  known  as  delits  (misdemeanors),  i.  e.,  offenses 
involving  penalities  which  are  heavier  than  those  attached  to  the 
contraventions  dealt  with  by  the  justices  of  the  peace,  yet  less  serious 
than  those  prescribed  for  crimes.    When  sitting  as  a  criminal  court, 

*J.  Brissaud,  History  of  French  Private  Law,  trans,  by  R.  Howell  (Boston, 
1912). 


338  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  court  of  first  instance  is  known  as  a  tribunal  correctionnel,  or  "  cor- 
rectional court."  All  of  its  judgments  in  criminal  cases  are  subject 
to  appeal. 

368.  The  Courts  of  Appeal  and  of  Assize. — Above  the  courts  of 
first  instance  are  twenty-six  cours  d'appel,  or  courts  of  appeal,  each 
of  which  exercises  jurisdiction  within  a  territory  comprising  from 
one  to  five  departments.    At  the  head  of  each  is  a  president,  and 
each  maintains  an  elaborate  parquet,  or  permanent  staff  of  officials, 
in   which   are   included   several   procureurs-generaux   and   awcats- 
generaux.     For  the  transaction  of  business  the  court  of  appeal  is 
divided  into  chambers,  or  sections,  each  consisting  of  a  president 
and  four  conseillers,  or  judges.    The  primary  function  of  the  court 
is  the  hearing  of  appeals,  in  both  civil  and  criminal  causes,  from  the 
courts  of  first  instance.    Original  jurisdiction  is  limited  and  incidental. 

Closely  related  to  the  courts  of  appeal  are  the  cours  d'assises,  or 
courts  of  assize.  These  are  not  separate  or  permanent  tribunals. 
Every  three  months  there  is  constituted  in  each  department,  ordi- 
narily in  the  chief  town  thereof,  a  court  of  assize  consisting  of  a 
specially  designated  member  of  the  court  of  appeals  within  whose 
jurisdiction  the  department  lies  and  two  other  magistrates,  who 
may  be  chosen  either  from  the  remaining  conseillers  of  the  court 
of  appeals  or  from  the  justices  of  the  local  court  of  first  instance. 
The  courts  of  assize  are  occupied  exclusively  with  serious  offenses, 
such  as  in  the  Penal  Code  are  classified  as  crimes.  In  them,  and  in 
them  only  among  French  tribunals,  is  the  device  of  the  jury  regu- 
larly employed.  A  jury  consists  of  twelve  men,  whose  verdict  is 
rendered  by  simple  majority.  As  in  Great  Britain  and  some  of  the 
American  states,  the  jurors  determine  the  fact  but  do  not  apply  the  law. 

369.  The  Court  of  Cassation.— At  the  apex  of  the  hierarchy  of 
ordinary  tribunals  is  the  Court  of  Cassation.    This  court  sits  at  Paris, 
and  in  all  matters  of  ordinary  private  law  it  is  the  supreme  tribunal 
of  the  state.    It  consists  of  a  first  president,  three  sectional  presidents, 
and  forty-five  judges.    Attached  to  it  are  a  procurator-general  and 
six  advocates-general.    For  working  purposes  it  is  divided  into  three 
sections :  the  Chambre  des  Requetes,  or  Court  of  Petitions,  which  gives 
civil  cases  a  preliminary  hearing;  the  Civil  Court,  which  gives  them 
a  final  consideration;  and  the  Criminal  Court,  which  disposes  of 
criminal  cases  on  appeal.    It  is  within  the  competence  of  the  Court 
of  Cassation  to  review  the  decisions  of  any  tribunal  in  France,  save 
those  of  an  administrative  character.    It  passes,  not  upon  fact,  but 
upon  the  principles  of  law  involved  and  upon  the  competence  of  the 
court  rendering  the  original  decision.    A  decision  which  is  overruled 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  339 

is  said  to  be  casse,  i.  e.,  annulled.  The  purpose  of  the  Court  of  Cassa- 
tion is  not  alone  to  further  the  interests  of  justice,  but  also  to  pre- 
serve the  unity  of  French  jurisprudence. 

370.  Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Judges. —  All  judges  attached 
to  the  ordinary  tribunals  are  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public, on  the  recommendation,  and  under  the  responsibility,  of  the 
Minister  of  Justice.    With  the  exception  of  justices  of  the  peace  in 
France,  and  of  judges  of  all  grades  hi  Algeria  and  the  colonies,  tenure 
of  judicial  office  continues  during  good  behavior;  and,  outside  of  the 
classes  mentioned,  no  judicial  officer  may  be  dismissed  without  the 
consent  of  the  Court  of  Cassation.    There  is,  however,  an  age  limit, 
varying  with  the  official  grade,  at  which  retirement  is  expected  and 
virtually  required.     Justices  of  the  peace  and  Algerian  and  colonial 
judges  may  be  dismissed  by  the  President.    Salaries  range  from  1,600 
francs  per  year  in  the  case  of  the  justice  of  the  peace  to  30,000  in  that 
of  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Cassation.1 

371.  Administrative  Law  and  Administrative  Tribunals. — Actions 
at  law  arising  out  of  the  conduct  of  administration  are  brought,  not 
in  the  regular  courts  connected  with  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  but  in 
special   administrative   tribunals   connected   with   the   Ministry   cf 
the  Interior.    Administrative  courts  exist  for  the  application  of  ad- 
ministrative law,  and  administrative  law  may  be  defined  in  brief 
as  that  body  of  legal  principles  by  which  are  determined  the  status 
and  liabilities  of  public  officials,  the  rights  and  liabilities  of  private 
individuals  in  their  dealings  with  the  official  representatives  of  the 
state,  and  the  procedure  by  which  these  rights  and  liabilities  may 
be  enforced.     The  idea  underlying  it  is  that  the  government,  and 
every  agent  of  the  government,  possesses  a  body  of  rights,  privileges, 
and  prerogatives  which  are  sharply  marked  off  from  those  of  the  private 
citizen,  and  that  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  rights  and  privileges 
are  to  be  determined  on  principles  essentially  distinct  from  those 
which  govern  in  the  fixing  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens 
in  relation  one  to  another.    This  conception  is  foreign  to  the  English- 
speaking  world,  and  neither  Great  Britain  nor  any  nation  of  English 
origin  possesses  more  than  here  and  there  an  accidental  trace  of  ad- 
ministrative law.     Among  continental   European   states,   however, 
the  maintenance  cf  a  body  of  administrative  legal  principles — un- 

1  The  best  treatise  upon  the  French  judicial  system  and  upon  proposed  reforms 
of  it  is  J.  Coumoul,  Trait6  du  pouvoir  judiciaire;  de  son  r61e  constitutionnel  et  de 
sa  re'forme  organique  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1911).  See  Vicomte  d'Avenel,  La  re'forme 
administrative — la  justice,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  June  i.  1889;  L.  Irwell, 
The  Judicial  System  of  France,  Green  Bag,  Nov..  1002. 


340  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

codified  and  flexible,  but  fundamental — is  all  but  universal.  In 
some  states,  as  Belgium,  the  rules  of  administrative  law  are  inter- 
preted and  enforced  by  the  ordinary  courts;  but  in  others,  as  in 
France,  they  are  dealt  with  by  an  entirely  separate  hierarchy  of 
tribunals,  made  up  of  officials  in  the  service  of  the  government  and 
dismissable  at  any  time  by  the  head  of  the  state.  "In  France,"  as 
one  writer  puts  it,  "there  is  one  law  for  the  citizen  and  another  for 
the  public  official,  and  thus  the  executive  is  really  independent  of 
the  judiciary,  for  the  government  has  always  a  free  hand,  and  can 
violate  the  law  if  it  wants  to  do  so  without  having  anything  to  fear 
from  the  ordinary  courts."  1  Although  not  without  precedent  in 
the  Old  Regime,  the  distinction  between  ordinary  and  administra- 
tive law  in  France  was  first  clearly  established  by  Napoleon  in  the 
constitution  of  1799,  and  the  system  of  administrative  courts  erected 
under  that  instrument  has  survived  in  large  part  to  the  present  day.2 

372.  The  Council  of  State. — The  most  important  of  the  administra- 
tive tribunals  is  the  Cornell  d'Etat,  or  Council  of  State,  a  body  which 
once  possessed  large  functions  of  an  executive  and  legislative  character, 
but  whose  influence  to-day  arises  almost  exclusively  from  its  supreme 
administrative  jurisdiction.  The  Council  of  State  is  composed  of  32 
councillors  en  service  ordinaire,  19  councillors  en  service  extraordinaire 
(Government  officials  deputed  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  various 
executive  departments),  32  maitres  des  requetes,  and  40  auditors.  All 
members  are  appointed  by,  and  dismissable  by,  the  President.  For 
purposes  of  business  the  body  is  divided  into  four  sections,  each  corre- 
sponding to  a  group  of  two  or  three  ministerial  departments,  and  a 
fifth  section  which  deals  more  directly  with  questions  of  administrative 
law.  It  is  the  function  of  the  Council  to  consider  and  make  reply  to  all 
questions  relating  to  administrative  affairs  which  the  Government  may 
lay  before  it;  and  in  all  administrative  cases  at  law  it  is  the  court  of  last 
resort.  Below  it  stands,  in  each  department,  a  conseil  de  prefecture, 
or  prefectural  council,  which  is  the  court  of  first  instance  in  all  litigation 
arising  out  of  the  application  of  administrative  law.  A  specialized 
function  of  the  prefectural  council  is  the  determining  of  the  validity  of 
arrondissement  and  municipal  elections.3 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  58. 

2  It  need  hardly  be  explained  that  the  First  Consul's  intention  was  that  the  or- 
dinary judges  should  not  be  allowed  to  obstruct  by  their  decisions  the  policies  of 
the  government. 

3  For  an  account  of  the  administrative  law  of  France  see  A.  V.  Dicey,  The  Law 
of  the  Constitution  (yth  ed.,  London,  1908),  Chap.  12.    Important  French  works 
on  the  subject  include  H.  Barth61emy,  Traite"  elementaire  de  droit  administratif 
(5th  ed.,  Paris,  1908);  H.  Chardon,  L'administration  de  la  France,  les  fonction- 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  341 

373.  Other  Courts. — Between  the  hierarchy  of  ordinary  courts  and 
that  of  administrative  tribunals  stand  a  variety  of  courts  of  special 
character — courts  of  commerce,  courts  of  accounts,  courts  of  public 
instruction.    There  is  a  Tribunal  des  Conflits,  or  Court  of  Conflicts, 
composed  of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  three  members  of  the  Court  of 
Cassation,  three  of  the  Council  of  State,  and  two  elected  by  these  seven. 
Under  the  presidency  of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  it  determines,  in  the 
event  of  doubt  or  dispute,  the  competent  jurisdiction,  ordinary  or  ad- 
ministrative, to  be  extended  to  a  particular  case.    Finally  the  fact  may 
be  recalled  that  to  take  cognizance  of  attacks  upon  the  safety  of  the 
state,  as  well  as  for  the  trial  of  an  impeachment  proceeding,  the  Senate 
may  be  constituted  a  high  court  of  justice. 

III.     LOCAL  GOVERNMENT:  DEVELOPMENT  SINCE  1789 

374.  Stability  of  Local  Institutions. — Students  of  political  science 
are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  governmental  systems  are,  as  a  rule, 
less  stable  at  the  top  than  at  the  bottom.    Local  institutions,  embedded 
in  the  interests  of  the  community  and  supported  by  the  native  conserva- 
tism of  the  ordinary  man,  strike  root  deeply;  the  central,  national 
agencies  of  law-making  and  of  administration  are  played  upon  by 
larger,  more  unsettling  forces,  with  the  consequence  of  greatly  increased 
likelihood  of  change.    Of  this  principle  the  history  of  modern  France 
affords  notable  illustration.    Throughout  a  century  of  the  most  remark- 
able instability  in  the  organization  of  the  central  government  of  the 
nation  the  scheme  of  local  government  which  operates  at  the  present 
day  has  been  preserved  almost  intact.    The  origins  of  it,  it  is  true,  are 
to  be  traced  to  revolution.   In  most  of  its  essentials  it  was  created  by  the 
National  Assembly  of  1789  and  by  Napoleon,  and  it  rose  upon  the  wreck- 
age of  a  system  whose  operation  had  been  extended  through  many 
centuries  of  Capetian  and  Bourbon  rule.     Once  established,  however,  it 
proved  sufficiently  workable  to  be  perpetuated  under  every  one  of  the 
governmental  regimes  which,  between  1800  and  the  present  day,  have 
filled  their  successive  places  in  the  history  of  the  nation. 

376.  Local  Government  Under  the  Old  Regime. — Prior  to  the  Revolu- 
tion the  French  administrative  system  was  centralized  and  bureaucratic, 
but  heterogeneous  and  notoriously  ineffective.  The  provinces  had 

naires  Paris,  1908);  G.  Jeze,  Les  principes  gen6raux  du  droit  administratif  (Paris, 
1904) ;  and  J.  L.  Aucoc,  Conferences  sur  1 'administration  et  le  droit  administratif  (3d 
ed.,  Paris,  1885).  Mention  may  be  made  also  of  E.  J.  Laferridre,  Trait6  de  la  juris- 
diction administrative  et  des  recours  contentieux  (Paris,  1887-1888),  and  Varagnac, 
Le  Conseil  d'fitat  et  les  projets  de  r€forme,  in  Rewt  des  Deux  Mondes,  Aug.  15, 
and  Sept.  15,  1892. 


342  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ceased  almost  completely  to  be  political  units.  In  but  few  of  them  did 
the  ancient  assembly  of  the  estates  survive,  and  nowhere  did  it  possess 
more  than  merely  formal  administrative  powers.  The  "governments" 
of  later  times,  corresponding  roughly  to  the  provinces,  had  fallen  like- 
wise into  desuetude  and  the  governors  had  become  inactive  pensioners. 
Of  political  units  possessing  some  vitality  there  were  but  two — the 
generality  and  the  commune.  The  generalite  was  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
royal  officer  known  as  an  intendant,  to  whom  was  assigned  the  conduct 
of  every  kind  of  administrative  business.  The  number  of  generalites 
in  the  kingdom  varied  from  thirty  to  forty.  The  commune  was  an  irre- 
ducible local  unit  whose  history  was  unbroken  from  the  era  of  Roman 
dominion  in  Gaul.  Its  constitution  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  in 
appearance  democratic.  To  the  communal  assembly  belonged  all 
persons  who  were  liable  to  the  taitte,  and  this  body  elected  communal 
officers,  cared  for  communal  property,  and  regulated  local  affairs. 
In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  measure  of  real  independence  which  the 
assembly  enjoyed  was  meager.  The  intendant  dictated  or  controlled 
virtually  its  every  act.  Of  true  local  government  it  may  be  said  that  in 
pre-revolutionary  France  there  was  little  or  none.1 

376.  The  Reconstitution  of  1789-1791. — One  of  the  earlier  perform- 
ances of  the  National  Assembly  of  1789  was  to  sweep  away  relentlessly 
the  administrative  system  of  the  Old  Regime  and  to  substitute  therefor 
an  order  which  was  all  but  entirely  new.  The  communes,  to  the  number 
of  upwards  of  forty-four  thousand,  were  retained.  But  the  provinces 
and  the  generalites  were  abolished  and  in  their  places  was  erected  a 
system  of  departments,  districts,  and  cantons.  For  historic  boundary 
lines,  physical  demarcations,  and  social  cleavages  only  incidental  al- 
lowance was  made.  Eighty-three  departments  in  all  were  created. 
In  each  there  were,  on  an  average,  six  or  seven  districts,  and  in  each  of 
these  an  average  of  eight  or  nine  cantons.  The  cantons,  in  turn,  were 
made  up  of  widely  varying  numbers  of  communes.  The  most  striking 
aspects  of  the  system  were  its  symmetry  and  its  detachment  from  history 
and  tradition.  Departments,  districts,  and  cantons  presented,  and  were 
intended  to  present,  a  tabula  rasa  upon  which  the  law-makers  of  France 
might  impress  any  pattern  whatsoever. 

For  the  time  being  the  ideal  of  democracy  was  predominant,  and  by 
the  measures  of  1789,  re-enforced  by  the  constitution  of  1791,  the  entire 
administration  of  local  affairs  was  transferred  at  a  stroke  from  the  agents 
of  the  crown  to  the  elected  representatives  of  the  new  governmental 

1  A.  Babeau,  La  ville  sous  Pancien  r6gime  (Paris,  1880);  A.  Luchaire,  Les  com- 
munes franchises  (Paris,  1890);  H.  Barth61emy,  Trait6  de  droit  administratif  ($th 
ed.,  Paris,  1908);  A.  Esmein,  Histoire  du  droit  Irancais  (8th  ed.,  Paris,  1908). 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  343 

units.  In  the  department  was  established  an  administrative  group 
consisting  of  thirty-six  persons,  elected  for  a  term  of  two  years,  and 
divided  into  an  executive  directory  of  nine  and  a  deliberative  council  of 
twenty-seven.  In  the  district  was  established  a  similar,  but  smaller, 
elective  directory  and  council,  and  in  the  commune  provision  was  made 
for  the  election,  under  a  broadly  democratic  franchise,  of  a  mayor 
and  a  council.  The  canton  was  not  employed  for  administrative 
purposes.1 

377.  The  Revival  of  Centralization,  1795-1800. — Experience  proved 
that  in  the  direction  both  of  democracy  and  of  decentralization  the  re- 
formers had  gone  too  far.  With  the  re-establishment  of  order  following 
the  close  of  the  Revolution  proper,  in  1795,  there  was  revived  the  rule 
of  official  experts,  together  with  the  maintenance  over  the  local  adminis- 
trative organs  of  a  highly  centralized  supervision.  The  Constitution 
of  the  Year  III.  (1795),  while  perpetuating  the  elective  principle  in 
respect  to  local  officers,  replaced  the  commune  by  the  canton  as  the 
basal  administrative  unit  and  made  provision  in  a  variety  of  ways  for 
the  effective  control  of  local  affairs  by  the  national  Directory.2  Under 
the  Napoleonic  regime,  established  in  1799-1800,  the  centralizing  process 
was  carried  yet  further.  The  canton  was  reduced  to  the  status  of  a 
judicial  district  and  the  commune  was  restored  as  the  basal  adminis- 
trative unit;3  but  it  was  stipulated  that  the  mayor,  the  adjoints,  or 
deputies,  and  the  council  of  the  commune  should  be  no  longer  elective, 
but  should  be  appointed  by  the  central  government,  directly  or  by  its 
departmental  agents.  By  law  of  February  17,  1800,  there  was  estab- 
lished in  each  department  a  prefect,  appointed  by  the  First  Consul, 
responsible  only  to  him,  and  endowed  with  functions  scarcely  less  com- 
prehensive than,  in  the  days  of  the  Old  Regime,  had  been  those  exer- 
cised by  the  intendant.  The  general  council  of  the  department  was 
perpetuated,  but  its  sixteen  to  twenty-four  members  were  henceforth 
to  be  named  for  a  term  of  three  years  by  the  First  Consul.  Each  de- 
partment, furthermore,  was  divided  for  administrative  purposes  into 
arrondissements,  within  each  of  which  were  established  a  sub-prefect 
and  a  council  of  eleven  members,  likewise  appointive.  The  arrondisse- 
rnent  represented  substantially  a  revival  of  the  district,  established  by 
law  of  December  22,  1789,  and  extinguished  by  the  constitution  of 
1795.  The  sub-prefect  served  as  a  local  deputy  of  the  prefect,  and  one 

1  For  the  text  of  the  De"cret  sur  les  Municipality's  of  December  14, 1789,  see  He"lie, 
Constitutions,  59-72.    An  English  version  is  in  Anderson,  Constitutions,  24-33. 

2  Anderson,  Constitutions,  233-236.    The  canton,  suppressed  by  law  of  June  26, 
I793>  was  now  revived. 

8  The  number  of  communes  was  reduced  at  this  time  from  44,000  to  36,000. 


344  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  his  principal  duties  was  to  assist  in  the  continuous  and  close  super- 
vision of  the  affairs  of  the  communes  within  his  jurisdiction.1 

378.  From  Napoleon  to  the  Third  Republic. — The  Napoleonic  ad- 
ministrative system — simple,  symmetrical,  bureaucratic,  and  ab- 
solutely centralized — has  persisted  in  France,  in  a  large  measure,  to 
the  present  day.2  The  most  important  modifications  that  have  been 
introduced  in  it  are  those  which  have  arisen  from  a  cautious  revival 
of  the  elective  principle  in  the  constitution  of  the  various  local  govern- 
mental bodies.  The  fall  of  Napoleon  brought  no  change  of  consequence, 
and  none  ensued  until  after  the  revolution  of  1830.  In  the  days  of  the 
Orleanist  monarchy,  however,  the  rigor  of  the  Napoleonic  system  was 
in  some  measure  relaxed.  A  law  of  1831  made  the  municipal  council 
elective,  one  of  1833  did  the  same  thing  for  the  councils  of  the  depart- 
ment and  the  arrondissement,  and  both  measures  established  a  fairly 
liberal  arrangement  in  respect  to  the  local  franchise.  In  1838  the  powers 
of  the  two  councils  were  materially  increased.3 

At  the  establishment,  in  1848,  of  the  Second  Republic,  the  essen- 
tials of  the  administrative  system  then  prevailing  were  retained.  It 
was  enacted  merely  that  the  various  councils  should  be  elected  on  a 
basis  of  manhood  suffrage,  and  that  in  communes  of  fewer  than  six 
thousand  inhabitants  the  council  should  be  permitted  to  elect  the  mayor 
and  the  deputies,  while  in  the  larger  ones  appointment  should  be  made 
as  heretofore  by  the  central  authorities.  With  the  conversion,  in  1851- 
52,  of  the  Second  Republic  into  the  Second  Empire,  this  decentralizing 
tendency  suffered  a  distinct  check.  Throughout  the  reign  of  Napoleon 
III.  the  communal  council  continued  to  be  elected,  at  least  nominally, 
upon  the  principle  of  manhood  suffrage;  but  so  throughgoing  was  the 
prefectorial  supervision  that  there  remained  to  the  councils  very  little 
of  initiative  or  independence  of  action.  Even  the  privilege  which  the 
smaller  communes  possessed  of  choosing  their  own  mayors  was  speedily 
lost,  while  by  a  decree  of  March  25,  1852,  the  powers  of  the  prefect  in 

1  Anderson,  Constitutions,  283-288.    G.  Alix,  Les  engines  du  syst&ne  adminis- 
tratif  francais,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July-Nov.,  1899. 

2  Its  influence  upon  the  administrative  systems  of  other  countries— Belgium, 
Italy,  Spain,  and  even  Greece,  Japan,  and  various  Latin  American  states — has 
been  profound.    "Judged  by  its  qualities  of  permanence  and  by  its  influence  abroad, 
the  law  of  1800  is  one  of  the  best  examples  of  Bonaparte's  creative  statesmanship, 
taking  rank  with  the  Code  and  with  the  Concordat  among  his  enduring  non- 
military  achievements.    If,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  England  has  been  the  mother 
of  parliaments  and  has  exercised  a  dominant  influence  upon  the  evolution  of  na- 
tional governments,  France  has  had  an  equally  important  rdle  in  moulding  systems 
of  local  administration  among  the  nations."    Munro,  Government  of  European 
Cities,  7. 

3  The  texts  of  these  acts  are  in  He"lie,  Constitutions,  1019-1050. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  345 

communal  affairs  were  substantially  extended.  Many  matters  per- 
taining to  departmental  and  communal  interests  which  this  official  had 
been  accustomed  to  refer  to  the  authorities  at  Paris  he  was  now  author- 
ized to  dispose  of  at  his  own  discretion.  Throughout  the  Second  Empire 
the  prefect,  more  truly  than  ever  before,  was  the  pivot  of  the  adminis- 
trative system.  Despite  the  survival  of  elective  councils  in  the  depart- 
ments, the  arrondissements,  and  the  communes,  local  autonomy  all  but 
disappeared. 

379.  Changes  Under  the  Third  Republic. — Upon  the  establishment 
of  the  Third  Republic  the  Napoleonic  system  was  discontinued  in  only 
some  of  its  more  arbitrary  aspects.  The  National  Assembly  of  1871 
revived  tentatively  the  scheme  laid  down  in  the  constitution  of  1848, 
save  that  once  again  the  councils  of  smaller  communes  were  authorized 
to  elect  the  mayors  and  deputies.  Even  at  such  a  time  of  unsettlement, 
when  the  liberal  elements  were  insistent  upon  changes  that  were  funda- 
mental, there  was  slender  indication  of  any  real  desire  on  the  part  of  the 
French  people  for  an  essentially  decentralized  administrative  regime. 
At  the  most,  the  demand  was  but  for  the  autonomy  of  the  commune, 
while  the  canton,  arrondissement,  and  department  should  continue  to 
be  administered  by,  and  largely  in  the  interest  of,  the  national  govern- 
ment. By  law  of  March  28, 1882,  the  demand  in  behalf  of  the  communes 
was  met.  Upon  every  commune,  large  and  small  (except  Paris),  was 
conferred  the  privilege  of  choosing  freely  its  entire  quota  of  adminis- 
trative officials;  and  in  the  great  municipal  code  of  April  5, 1884,  drafted 
by  a  commission  of  nine  constituted  in  the  previous  year,  this  privilege, 
with  others,  was  specifically  guaranteed.1  Departments  and  arrondisse- 
ments, however,  continued  to  be  primarily  spheres  within  which  the 
general  government,  acting  through  its  own  agents,  brought  home  im- 
mediately to  the  people  the  reality  and  comprehensiveness  of  its  author- 
ity. And  to  this  day  France  presents  the  curious  spectacle  of  a  nation 
broadly  democratic  in  respect  to  its  constitution  and  central  government, 
yet  more  closely  bound  by  a  hard  and  fast  administrative  regime  than 
any  other  principal  state  of  western  Europe.2 

1  Text  in  J.  Duvergier,  Collection  complete  des  lois,  de*crets,  ordonnances,  re"gle- 
ments,  avis  du  conseil  d'6tat  (Paris,  1834-1907),  LXXXIV.,  99-148. 

2  On  the  French  administrative  system  two  admirable  general  works  are  H. 
Barthe'lemy,  Trait6  de  droit  administratif  (5th  ed.,  Paris,  1908),  and  A.  Esmein, 
Histoire  du  droit  francais  (8th  ed.,  Paris,  1908).    An  older  treatise  of  value  is  E. 
Monnet,  Histoire  de  Padministration  provincial,  de"partementale  et  communale 
en  France  (Paris,  1885).    Three  works  in  which  the  subject  is  dealt  with  in  a  com- 
parative fashion  are  P.  P.  Leroy-Beaulieu,  Administration  locale  en  France  et  en 
Angleterre  (Paris,  1872);  P.  W.  L.  Ashley,  Local  and  Central  Government  (London, 
1906);  and  F.  J.  Goodnow,  Comparative  Administrative  Law  (2d  ed.,  New  York, 


346  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


IV.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  TO-DAY 

380.  The  Department:  the  Prefect. — For  administrative  purposes, 
the  Republic  is  divided,  first  of  all,  into  86  departments,  besides  which 
there  is  the  "territory"  of  Belfort,  a  remnant  of  the  department  of  the 
Upper  Rhine,  most  of  which  was  acquired  by  Germany  in  1871.    Since 
1 88 1  the  three  departments  of  Algeria  have  been  dealt  with  substan- 
tially as  if  included  within  continental  France. 

At  the  head  of  each  of  the  departments  is  a  prefect,  appointed  and 
removed  nominally  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  but  in  reality 
by  the  Minister  of  the  Interior.  The  prefect,  who  is  much  the  most 
important  of  all  local  officials,  is  at  the  saine  time  an  agent  of  the 
general  government  and  the  executive  head  of  the  department  in  the 
administration  of  local  affairs.  As  agent  of  the  general  government  he 
acts,  in  some  instances,  upon  detailed  instructions;  in  others,  he  enjoys 
a  wide  range  of  discretion.  His  powers  extend  to  virtually  all  public 
matters  affecting  the  department.  He  supervises  the  execution  of  the 
laws;  maintains  a  vigorous  control  over  all  administrative  officials 
of  the  department,  upon  occasion  annulling  their  acts;  gives  the 
authorities  at  Paris  information  and  advice  respecting  the  affairs  of 
the  department;  nominates  to  a  variety  of  subordinate  offices;  exer- 
cises an  oversight  of  the  communes,  some  of  whose  measures  become 
effective  only  after  receiving  his  assent;  and,  in  certain  instances 
indicated  by  law,  acts  as  a  judge.  He  is  assisted  by  a  secretary  and 
a  conseil  de  prefecture,  appointed  by  the  President.  This  prefectorial 
council,  consisting  of  from  three  to  nine  members,  advises  the  prefect 
and,  in  certain  cases,  exercises  jurisdiction  as  an  administrative  tri- 
bunal. The  prefect  is  essentially  a  political  official.  He  owes  his  ap- 
pointment not  infrequently  to  political  considerations,  and  with  the 
fall  of  the  ministry  his  tenure  is  apt  to  be  terminated. 

381.  The  Department:  the  General  Council. — As  executive  head 
of  the  department  the  prefect  is  required  to  work  with  a  conseil  general, 
or  representative  assembly,  elected  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  depart- 
ment on  a  basis  of  manhood  suffrage.    This  council  comprises  one 
member  chosen  in  each  canton  for  a  period  of  six  years,  half  of  the 
number  retiring  every  three  years.    The  actual  powers  of  the  body 
are  not  large.    Aside  from  the  apportioning  of  the  direct  taxes  among 
the  arrondissements,  they  are  restricted  pretty  generally  to  the  admin- 
istration of  highways,  canals,  schools,  asylums,  and  similar  interests. 
1903).    A  study  of  some  value  is  J.  T.  Young,  Administrative  Centralization  and 
Decentralization  in  France,  in  Annals  ofAmer.  Acad.  of  Political  and  Social  Sciencet 
Jan.,  1898. 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  347 

Questions  of  a  political  nature  or  of  a  national  bearing  are  rigorously 
excluded  from  consideration.  The  council  has  but  two  ordinary 
sessions  a  year — one  extending  through  not  more  than  fifteen  days, 
the  other  not  more  than  a  month.  The  longer  begins  regularly  in 
August  and  is  devoted  to  the  consideration  of  the  budget.  During  the 
intervals  between  sessions  the  council  is  represented  by  a  commission 
departementale,  or  permanent  delegation,  of  from  four  to  seven  mem- 
bers. Neither  the  council  nor  the  delegation  possesses  any  considerable 
measure  of  control  over  the  prefect.  The  council's  acts  may  be  vetoed 
by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  and,  except  when  the  national  parlia- 
ment is  in  session,  the  body  may  be  dissolved  by  the  same  power.  The 
department  is  an  essentially  artificial  political  unit.  During  the 
century  and  a  quarter  of  its  existence  it  has  not  become — indeed  has 
been  prevented  deliberately  from  becoming — a  sphere  of  forceful, 
independent  governmental  activity.1 

382.  The  Arrondissement  and  the  Canton. — Next  to  the  depart- 
ment stands  the  arrondissement,  or  district,  created  originally  in  1799. 
Within  the  bounds  of  France  there  are  to-day  362  of  these  districts. 
Except  those  in  the  department  of  the  Seine,  and  three  containing  the 

capitals  of  departments  elsewhere,  each  has  in  its  chief  town  a  sub- ^ 

prefect,  who  serves  as  a  district  representative  of  the  prefect.    Every    jf^ 
one  has  a  conseil  d' arrondissement,  or  arrondissement  council,  con-  - 
sisting  of  at  least  nine  members,  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  for  a   v 
term  of  six  years.     But  since  the  arrondissement  has  no  corporate  * 
personality,  no  property,  and  no  budget,  the  council  possesses  but  a 
single  function  of  importance,  that,  namely,  of  allotting  among  the 
communes  their  quotas  of  the  taxes  assigned  to  the  arrondissement  by 

1  An  administrative  reform  which  appears  not  infrequently  in  current  political 
discussion  in  France  is  the  grouping  of  the  departments  into  "regions"  possessing 
a  certain  community  of  character  and  interest.  Each  of  a  score  or  more  of  regions 
might  conceivably  be  made  to  have  an  assembly  of  its  own,  and  within  each  of  them 
one  of  the  departmental  prefects  might  be  given  a  certain  superiority  over  his 
colleagues.  The  principal  purpose  would  be  to  offset  somewhat  the  nation's  present 
excess  of  administrative  centralization.  On  this  proposal  see  C.  Beauquier,  Un 
pro  jet  de  reforme  administrative;  1'organisation  regionale  en  France,  in  Revue 
Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Nov.  10,  1909.  Cf.  A.  Brette,  La  r6forme  des  departe- 
ments  a  propos  d'une  proposition  de  loi,  ibid.  On  the  department  as  at  present 
constituted  the  monumental  treatise  is  G.  Bouffet  et  L.  Pe"rier,  Trait6  du  de"parte- 
ment,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1894-1895).  In  M.  Laferriere,  Loi  organique  de"partementale  du 
10  Aout  1871  (Paris,  1871)  is  an  annotated  copy  of  the  organic  statute  of  ^871.  See 
also  G.  Dethan,  De  1'organisation  des  conseils  ge'ne'raux  (Paris,  1889);  A.  Nectoux, 
Des  attributions  des  conseillers  gene"raux  (Paris,  1895);  and  P.  Chardenet,  Les  61ec- 
tions  dSpartementales  (Paris,  1895).  An  excellent  brief  statement  will  be  found  in 
M.  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  1'administration  francaise  ($th  ed.,  Paris  and  Nancy, 
1905),  I.,  933-948,  1101-1116. 


348  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  general  council  of  the  department.  The  arrondissement  is,  how- 
ever, the  electoral  district  for  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  also  nor- 
mally the  seat  of  a  court  of  first  instance.1 

The  canton  is  an  electoral  and  a  judicial,  but  not  strictly  an  admin- 
istrative, unit.  It  is  the  area  from  which  are  chosen  the  members  of 
both  the  departmental  general  council  and  the  council  of  the  arron- 
dissement, and  it  constitutes  the  jurisdiction  of  the  justice  of  the 
peace.  The  total  number  of  cantons  is  2,911.  As  a  rule  each  con  tarns 
about  a  dozen  communes,  though  a  few  of  the  larger  communes  are  so 
populous  as  to  be  divided  into  a  number  of  cantons. 

383.  The  Commune. — The  most  fundamental  of  the  administrative 
divisions  of  France,  and  the  only  one  whose  origins  antedate  the 
Revolution,  is  the  commune.    The  commune  is  at  the  same  time  a 
territorial  division  and  a  corporate  personality.    "On  the  one  hand," 
to  employ  the  language  of  a  recent  writer,  "it  is  a  tract  of  territory  the 
precise  limits  of  which  were  denned  by  the  law  of  December  22,  1789, 
or  by  some  subsequent  law  or  decree;  for  by  the  law  of  1789  all  local 
units  which  had  a  separate  identity  during  the  old  regime  were  author- 
itatively recognized  as  communes,  and  since  that  enactment  there 
have  been  a  number  of  suppressions,  divisions,  consolidations,  and 
creations  of  communal  units.    On  the  other  hand,  the  commune  is  an 
agglomeration  of  citizens  united  by  life  in  a  common  locality  and  hav- 
ing a  common  interest  in  the  communal  property.    A  commune  ranks 
as  a  legal  person:  it  may  sue  and  be  sued,  may  contract,  acquire,  or 
convey  property, — it  may,  in  general,  exercise  all  of  the  ordinary  rights 
of  a  corporation."  2 

Of  communes  there  are,  in  all,  under  the  territorial  land  survey  of 
1909,  36,229.  In  both  size  and  population  they  vary  enormously. 
Some  comprise  but  diminutive  hamlets  of  two  or  three  score  people; 
others  comprise  cities  like  Bordeaux,  Lyons,  and  Marseilles,  each  with  a 
population  in  excess  of  a  quarter  of  a  million.  At  the  last  census  27,000 
communes  had  a  population  of  less  than  one  thousand;  17,000,  of  less 
than  five  hundred;  9,000,  of  less  than  three  hundred;  137,  of  less  than 
fifty.  On  the  other  hand,  250  contained  each  a  population  of  more 
than  ten  thousand,  and  fourteen  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand. 
In  area  they  vary  all  the  way  from  a  few  acres  to  the  254,540  acres  of 
the  commune  of  Aries.3 

384.  The  Communal  Council. — Except  Paris  and  Lyons,  all  com- 
munes are  organized  and  governed  in  the  same  manner.     In  each 

1  Block,  Dictionnaire  de  Padministration  francaise,  I.,  256-260. 

2Munro,  Government  of  European  Cities,  15. 

3  A.  Porche,  La  question  des  grandes  et  des  petits  communes  (Paris,  1900). 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  349 

is  a  council,  whose  members  are  elected  by  manhood  suffrage  and, 
normally,  on  the  principle  of  the  scrtUin  de  liste,  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  The  body  is  renewed  integrally,  on  the  first  Sunday  in  May  in 
every  fourth  year.  In  communes  whose  population  is  under  five  hun- 
dred the  number  of  councillors  is  ten;  in  those  whose  population  ex- 
ceeds five  hundred  the  number  is  graduated  on  a  basis  such  that  a 
commune  of  sixty  thousand  people  has  a  council  of  thirty-six,  which  is 
the  maximum.  The  council  holds  annually  four  ordinary  sessions — 
in  February,  May,  August,  and  November — besides  which  special 
meetings  may  be  convoked  at  any  tune  by  the  prefect,  the  sub-prefect, 
or  the  mayor.  Sessions  are  held  in  the  mairie,  or  municipal  building, 
and  are  regularly  open  to  the  public.  Except  the  May  session,  during 
which  the  budget  is  considered,  a  meeting  may  not  be  prolonged  be- 
yond fifteen  days,  save  with  the  consent  of  the  sub-prefect.  The 
normal  maximum  of  the  May  sitting  is  six  weeks. 

Speaking  broadly,  the  functions  of  the  council  may  be  said  to  com- 
prise the  administration  of  the  purely  local  affairs  of  the  commune  and 
the  formulation  and  expression  of  local  needs  and  demands.  In  the 
code  of  1884  the  powers  of  the  body  are  defined  with  exceeding  minute- 
ness. Some  are  purely  advisory,  to  be  exercised  when  the  council  is 
called  upon  by  the  higher  administrative  authorities  for  an  expression 
of  local  interest  or  desire  in  respect  to  a  particular  question.  Advice 
thus  tendered  may  or  may  not  be  heeded.  Other  powers  involve  the 
initiation  by  the  council  of  certain  kinds  of  measures,  which,  however, 
may  be  carried  into  effect  only  with  the  assent  of  the  higher  author- 
ities. Among  the  thirteen  such  measures  which  are  enumerated  in  the 
code  the  most  important  are  those  pertaining  to  the  purchase,  sale, 
or  other  legal  disposition  of  property  belonging  to  the  commune. 
Finally,  there  is  a  group  of  powers — relating  principally  to  the  various 
communal  services,  e.  g.,  parks,  fire-protection,  etc. — which  are  vested 
in  the  communal  authorities  (council  and  mayor)  independently.  But 
the  predominating  fact  is  that  even  to-day  the  autonomy  of  the  com- 
mune is  subject  to  numerous  and  important  limitations.  Many  com- 
munal measures  become  valid  only  upon  receiving  the  approval  of  the 
prefect,  and  virtually  any  one  of  them  may  be  suspended  or  annulled 
by  that  official.  Some  require  the  consent  of  the  departmental  council, 
or  even  of  the  President  of  the  Republic;  and  by  decree  of  the  President 
the  council  itself  may  be  dissolved  at  any  time. 

386.  The  Mayor  and  his  Assistants. — The  executive  head  of  the 
commune  is  the  maire,  or  mayor,  who  is  elected  by  the  municipal 
council,  by  secret  ballot,  from  its  own  membership,  for  a  term  of  four 
years.  Associated  with  the  mayor  is,  in  communes  of  2,500  inhabitants 


350  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

or  fewer,  an  adjoint,  or  assistant,  similarly  chosen.  In  communes  of 
2,500  to  1 0,000  inhabitants  there  are  two  assistants,  and  in  those  of  over 
10,000  there  is  an  additional  one  for  every  25,000  people  in  excess  of  the 
figure  named.  Except  in  Lyons,  however,  where  there  are  seventeen, 
the  number  may  not  exceed  twelve.  The  mayor  plays  the  dual  role  of 
executive  head  of  the  commune  and  representative  (though  not  the 
appointee)  of  the  central  government.  The  powers  which  he  exercises 
vary  widely  according  to  the  size  and  importance  of  the  commune. 
But  in  general  it  may  be  said  that  he  appoints  to  the  majority  of 
municipal  offices,  publishes  laws  and  decrees  and  issues  arretes,  or 
ordinances,  supervises  finance,  organizes  and  controls  the  local  police, 
executes  measures  for  public  health  and  safety,  safeguards  the  prop- 
erty interests  of  the  commune,  and  represents  the  commune  in  cases 
at  law  and  on  ceremonial  occasions. 

The  functions  of  the  mayoral  office  are  in  practice  distributed  by  the 
mayor  among  the  assistants,  to  each  of  whom  is  assigned  a  specific 
department,  such  as  that  of  streets,  of  sanitation,  or  of  fire-protection. 
As  a  rule,  the  mayor  reserves  to  himself  the  control  of  police.  For  the 
acts  of  the  assistants,  however,  the  mayor  is  directly  responsible,  and 
all  acts,  whether  of  the  mayor  or  of  the  assistants,  which  relate  to  the 
interests  of  the  general  government  are  performed  under  the  strictest 
surveillance  of  the  prefectorial  authorities.  The  mayor  may  be  sus- 
pended from  office  for  a  month  by  the  prefect,  or  for  three  months  by 
the  Minister  of  the  Interior;  and  he  may  be  removed  from  office  al- 
together by  order  of  the  President. 

Despite  the  restrictions  which  are  placed  upon  it,  the  commune 
remains  the  true  focus  of  local  life  in  France.1  Its  activities,  on  a  suffi- 

1  Among  general  treatises  on  the  French  commune  may  be  mentioned  M.  Block, 
Entretiens  sur  1'administration;  la  commune  (Paris,  1884);  L.  Bequet,  Traite"  de 
la  commune  (Paris,  1888);  P.  Andre  and  F.  Marin,  La  loi  sur  1'organisation  munic- 
ipale  du  5  avril  1884  (Paris,  1884);  and  F.  Grelot,  Loi  du  5  avril  1884  (Paris,  1889). 
The  best  and  most  recent  extensive  work  is  L.  Morgand,  La  loi  municipale,  2  vols. 
(;th  ed.,  Paris,  1907).  The  most  convenient  brief  discussion  in  French  is  in  Block, 
Dictionnaire  de  l'administration  francaise,  L,  738-852.  In  English  a  good  descrip- 
tion is  in  A.  Shaw,  Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe  (New  York,  1897), 
and  a  fuller  and  more  recent  one  in  W.  B.  Munro,  The  Government  of  European 
Cities,  1-108.  On  municipal  elections  the  best  work  is  M.  J.  Saint-Lager,  Elections 
municipales  (6th  ed.,  Paris,  1904).  Worthy  of  mention  are  Chardenet,  Panhard, 
and  Gerard,  Les  elections  municipales  (Paris,  1896),  and  J.  Dorlhac,  De  I'electorat 
politique:  6tude  sur  la  capacite  electorate  et  les  conditions  d'exercise  du  droit  de 
vote  (Paris,  1890).  An  excellent  study  is  P.  Lavergne,  Du  pouvoir  central  et  des 
conseils  municipaux,  in  Revue  Gtnirale  d' Administration,  1900.  See  also  A.  G. 
Desbats,  Le  budget  municipal  (Paris,  1895);  M.  Peletant,  De  1'organisation  de  la 
police  (Dijon,  1899);  and  R.  Griffin,  Les  biens  communaux  en  France  (Paris,  1899). 


JUSTICE  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT  351 

ciently  petty  scale  though  they  not  infrequently  are,  run  the  gamut  of 
finance,  commerce,  industry,  education,  religion,  and  politics.  So 
strong  is  the  communal  spirit  that  public  sentiment  will  acquiesce  but 
rarely  in  the  suppression  of  a  commune,  or  even  in  the  union  of  two 
or  more  diminutive  ones;  and,  in  truth,  the  code  of  1884  recognized 
the  fixity  of  communal  identity  by  permitting  changes  of  communal 
boundaries  to  be  undertaken  by  the  departmental  authorities  only 
after  there  shall  have  been  held  an  enquete  and  local  susceptibilities 
shall  have  been  duly  consulted.  Save  by  special  decree  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Republic,  not  even  the  name  of  a  commune  may  be  altered. 

On  the  government  of  Paris  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  G.  Artigues,  Le  regime 
municipal  de  la  ville  de  Paris  (Paris,  1898),  and  M.  Block,  L' Administration  de  la 
ville  de  Paris  et  du  d6partement  de  la  Seine  (Paris,  1898).  Excellent  bibliographies 
art  printed  in  Munro,  op.  cit.,  380-389,  and  in  Block,  Dictionnaire,  L,  850-852. 


PART  IV.    ITALY 

CHAPTER  XIX 
CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY 

I.  THE  ERA  OF  NAPOLEON 

386.  Italy  in  the  Later  Eighteenth  Century. — The  dominant  forces 
in  the  politics  of  Europe  since  the  French  Revolution  have  been  the 
twin  principles  of  nationality  and  democracy;  and  nowhere  have  the 
fruits  of  these  principles  been  more  strikingly  in  evidence  than  in 
the  long  disrupted  and  misgoverned  peninsula  of  Italy.    The  awaken- 
ing of  the  Italian  people  to  a  new  consciousness  of  unity,  strength, 
and  aspiration  may  be  said  to  date  from  the  Napoleonic  invasion  of 
1796,  and  the  first  phase  of  the  Risorgimento,  or  "resurrection," 
may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  coincident  with  the  era  of  French 
domination,  i.  e.,  1796-1814.     At  the  opening  of  this  period  two 
non-Italian  dynasties  shared  the  dominion  of  much  the  larger  portion 
of  Italy.    To  the  Austrian  Hapsburgs  belonged  the  rich  duchies  of 
Milan  (including  Mantua)  and  Tuscany,  together  with  a  prepon- 
derating influence  in  Modena.    To  the  Spanish  Bourbons  belonged 
the  duchy  of  Parma  and  the  important  kingdom  of  Naples,  includ- 
ing Sicily.     Of  independent  states  there  were  six — the  kingdom  of 
Sardinia  (comprising  Piedmont,  the  island  of  Sardinia,  and,  nominally, 
Savoy  and  Nice),  where  alone  in  all  Italy  there  lingered  some  measure 
of  native  political  vitality;  the  Papal  States;  the  petty  monarchies 
of  Lucca  and  San  Marino;  and  the  two  ancient  republics  of  Venice  and 
Genoa,  long  since  shorn  of  their  empires,  their  maritime  power,  and 
their  economic  and  political  importance.    All  but  universally  absolu- 
tism held  sway,  and  in  most  of  the  states,  especially  those  of  the 
south,  absolutism  was  synonymous  with  corruption  and  oppression. 

387.  The  Cisalpine  Republic,  1797. — During  the  two  decades  which 
comprehended  the  public  career  of  Napoleon  it  was  the  part  of  the 
French  to  overturn  completely  the  long  existing  political  arrange- 
ment of  Italy,  to  abolish  altogether  the  dominion  of  Austria  and  to 
substitute  therefor  that  of  France,  to  plant -in  Italy  a  wholly  new  and 
revolutionizing  set  of  political  and  legal  institutions,  and,  quite  un- 

353 


354  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

intentionally,  to  fan  to  a  blaze  a  patriotic  zeal  which  through  genera- 
tions had  smouldered  almost  unobserved.  The  beginning  of  these 
transformations  came  directly  in  consequence  of  the  brilliant  Napo- 
leonic incursion  of  1796.  One  by  one,  upon  the  advance  of  the  victori- 
ous French,  were  detached  the  princes  who,  under  English  and  Aus- 
trian tutelage,  had  been  allied  hitherto  against  France.  The  king  of 
Naples  sought  an  armistice;  the  Pope  made  peace;  at  Arcole  and 
Rivoli  the  Austrian  power  was  shattered.  October  16,  1796,  there 
was  proclaimed,  with  the  approval  of  the  conqueror,  a  Cispadane 
Republic,  including  Modena,  Reggio,  Ferrara,  and  Bologna;  and 
March  27,  1797,  there  was  promulgated  for  the  new  state  a  constitu- 
tion which,  after  having  been  adopted  by  representatives  of  the  four 
districts,  had  been  ratified  by  a  vote  of  the  people.  This  constitution — 
the  first  in  the  history  of  modern  Italy — was  modelled  immediately 
upon  the  French  instrument  of  1795.  It  provided  for  a  legislative 
council  of  sixty  members,  with  exclusive  power  to  propose  measures, 
another  of  thirty  members,  with  power  to  approve  or  reject  measures, 
and  an  executive  directory  of  three,  elected  by  the  legislative  bodies. 

In  Lombardy  a  similar  movement  produced  similar  results.  Through 
the  spring  and  early  summer  of  1797  four  commissions,  constituted 
by  Napoleon,  worked  out  a  constitution  which  likewise  reproduced 
all  of  the  essential  features  of  the  French  model,  and,  July  9,  the 
Transpadane  Republic  was  inaugurated,  with  brilliant  ceremony, 
at  Milan.  Provision  was  made  for  a  directory  and  for  two  legislative 
councils  consisting  of  one  hundred  sixty  and  eighty  members  respec- 
tively; and  the  first  directors,  representatives,  and  other  officials 
were  named  by  Napoleon.  At  the  urgent  solicitation  of  the  Cispa- 
danes  the  two  republics  were  united,  July  15,  and  upon  the  com- 
bined commonwealth  was  bestowed  the  name  of  the  Cisalpine 
Republic.1  During  the  preceding  May  the  venerable  but  helpless 
Venetian  republic  had  been  crushed,  and  when,  in  the  treaty  of 
Campo  Formio,  October  17,  1797,  Austria  was  brought  to  the  point 
of  recognizing  the  new  Cisalpine  state,  she  was  compensated  in  some 
degree  by  being  awarded  the  larger  part  of  the  Venetian  territories, 
including  the  city  of  Venice.2 

388.  The  Ligurian,  Roman,  and  Parthenopaean  Republics,  1797- 
1799. — In  the  meantime,  in  June,  1797,  the  ancient  republic  of 
Genoa  had  undergone  a  remodelling.  The  ruling  oligarchy,  driven 
from  power  by  Napoleon,  gave  place  to  a  democracy  of  a  moderate 

^he  Cisalpine  constitution  was  amended  September  i,  1798,  when  there  was 
introduced  in  the  republic  the  French  system  of  administrative  divisions. 
2  E.  Bonnal  de  Ganges,  La  chute  d'une  r£publique  (Paris,  1885). 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY       355 

type,  the  legislative  functions  being  intrusted  to  two  popularly  elected 
chambers,  while  the  executive  power  was  vested  in  a  doge  and  twelve 
senators;  and  to  the  new  commonwealth,  French  in  all  but  name,  was 
given  the  designation  of  the  Ligurian  Republic.  The  Ligurian  con- 
stitution was  accepted  by  the  people  December  2,  1797.  During 
the  winter  of  1797-1798  the  French  Directory,  openly  hostile  to  the 
papacy,  persistently  encouraged  the  democratic  party  at  Rome  to 
overthrow  the  temporal  power  and  to  set  up  an  independent  republic. 
February  15,  1798,  with  the  aid  of  French  arms,  the  democrats  se- 
cured the  upper  hand,  assembled  in  the  Forum,  declared  for  the 
restoration  of  the  Roman  Republic,  and  elected  as  head  of  the  state 
a  body  of  seven  consuls.  The  aged  pontiff,  Pius  VI.,  was  maltreated 
and  eventually  transported  to  France.  For  the  new  Tiberine,  or 
Roman,  Republic  was  promulgated,  March  20,  1798,  a  constitution 
providing  for  the  customary  two  councils — a  Senate  of  thirty  members 
and  a  Tribunate  of  sixty — and  a  directory,  christened  a  consulate, 
consisting  of  five  consuls  elected  by  the  councils.  Within  a  twelve- 
month thereafter  (January  23,  1799),  following  a  clash  of  arms  be- 
tween the  French  and  the  Neapolitan  sovereign,  Ferdinand  IV.,  Naples 
was  taken  and  the  southern  kingdom  was  converted  into  the  Par- 
thenopaean  Republic.  A  constitution  was  there  promulgated  providing 
for  a  directory  of  five  members,  a  Senate  of  fifty,  possessing  exclusive 
right  of  legislative  initiative,  and  a  Tribunate  of  one  hundred  twenty.1 
389.  Constitutional  Revisions. — During  the  absence  of  Napoleon 
on  the  Egyptian  expedition  the  armies  of  France  suffered  repeated 
reverses  in  Italy,  and  by  the  end  of  1799  all  that  had  been  gained  for 
France  seemed  to  be,  or  about  to  be,  lost.  By  the  campaign  which 
culminated  at  Marengo  (June  14,  1800),  however,  Napoleon  not  only 
clinched  his  newly  won  position  in  France  but  brought  Italy  once  more 
to  his  feet.  Under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Luneville  (February  9, 1801) 
Austria  recognized  the  reconstituted  Cisalpine  and  Ligurian  republics, 
while  Modena  and  Tuscany  reverted  to  French  control,  and  French 
ascendancy  elsewhere  was  securely  established.  September  21,  1802, 
Piedmont  was  organized  in  six  departments  and  incorporated  in  the 
French  Republic.  During  the  winter  of  1802-1803  the  constitutions  of 
the  Cisalpine  and  Ligurian  republics  were  remodelled  in  the  interest 
of  that  same  autocratic  domination  which  already  was  fast  ripening 
in  France.  In  each  republic  were  established  at  first  three  bodies — 
an  executive  consulta?  a  legislature  of  150  members,  and  a  court — which 

1  For  an  interesting  portrayal  of  the  workings  of  republican  idealism  in  the 
Neapolitan  republic  see  Fisher,  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  150-157. 

2  An  advisory  council  of  state,  consisting  of  eight  members. 


356  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

were  chosen  by  three  electoral  colleges  comprising  (i)  the  possidenti,  or 
landed  proprietors,  (2)  the  dotti,  or  scholars  and  ecclesiastics,  and  (3) 
the  commercianti,  or  merchants  and  traders;  but  the  legislature  could 
be  overridden  completely  by  the  consulta,  and  the  consulta  was  little 
more  than  the  organ  of  Napoleon.  Incidentally,  the  Cisalpine  Re- 
public at  this  point  was  renamed  the  Italian  Republic.  Within  a  twelve- 
month the  new  constitutions,  proving  too  democratic,  were  revised  io 
such  a  manner  that  for  the  legislative  body  was  substituted  a  senate  of 
thirty  members  presided  over  by  a  doge,  in  which  were  concentrated  all 
political  and  administrative  powers. 

390.  The  Kingdom  of  Italy  (1805)  and  the  Napoleonic  Kingdom  of 
Naples,  1807. — The  stipulation  of  the  treaty  of  Luneville  to  the  effect 
that  the  Italian  republics  should  remain  entirely  independent  of  France 
was  all  the  while  disregarded.  Politically  and  commercially  they  were 
but  dependencies,  and,  following  the  proclamation  of  the  French  empire 
(May  18,  1804),  the  fact  was  admitted  openly.  To  Napoleon  it  seemed 
incongruous  that  an  emperor  of  the  French  should  be  a  patron  of  re- 
publics. How  meager  was  the  conqueror's  concern  for  the  political 
liberty  of  the  Italians  had  been  demonstrated  many  times,  never  more 
forcefully  than  in  the  cynical  treatment  which  he  accorded  Venice. 
No  one  knew  better,  furthermore,  how  ill-equipped  were  the  Italians 
for  self-government.  Gradually,  therefore,  there  was  framed  a  project 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Italian  Republic  into  a  kingdom  which  should 
be  tributary  to  France.  Napoleon's  desire  was  that  his  eldest  brother, 
Joseph,  should  occupy  the  throne  of  this  kingdom.  But  Joseph,  not 
caring  to  jeopardize  his  chances  of  succession  in  France,  demurred,  as 
did  also  the  younger  brother,  Louis.  The  upshot  was  that  by  a  con- 
stitutional statute  of  March  17,  1805,  the  Emperor  caused  himself  to 
be  called  to  the  throne  of  Italy,  and  May  26  following,  in  the  cathedral 
at  Milan,  he  placed  upon  his  own  head  the  iron  crown  of  the  old  Lombard 
kings.  The  sovereign's  step-son,  Eugene  Beauharnais,  was  designated 
regent.  In  June  of  the  same  year,  in  response  to  a  petition  which  Na- 
poleon himself  had  instigated,  the  Ligurian  Republic  was  proclaimed 
an  integral  part  of  the  French  empire.  The  annexation  of  Parma  and 
Piacenza  promptly  followed. 

Against  the  coalition  of  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Naples, 
which  was  prompted  immediately  by  the  Ligurian  annexation,  Napoleon 
was  completely  successful.  By  the  treaty  of  Pressburg  (December  26, 
1806)  Austria  ceded  to  the  Italian  kingdom  her  portion  of  Venetia, 
together  with  the  provinces  of  Istria  and  Dalmatia.1  Following  a 
vigorous  campaign  conducted  by  Joseph  Bonaparte,  the  restored  Bour- 
1  The  incorporation  of  Dalmatia  with  the  kingdom  of  Italy  was  but  temporary., 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY       357 

bon  family  was  driven  again  from  Naples,  whereupon  Joseph  allowed 
himself  to  be  established  there  as  king.  In  1808  he  was  succeeded  by 
Napoleon's  ambitious  marshal  and  brother-in-law  Murat.  From 
Bayonne,  Joseph  issued  a  constitution  for  his  former  subjects,  pro- 
viding for  a  council  of  state  of  from  twenty-six  to  thirty-six  members 
and  a  single  legislative  chamber  of  one  hundred  members,  of  whom 
eighty  were  to  be  named  by  the  king  and  twenty  were  to  be  chosen 
by  electoral  colleges.  Not  until  1815,  however,  and  then  but 
during  the  space  of  a  few  weeks,  was  this  instrument  actually  in 
operation. 

391.  The  End  of  French  Dominance. — Finally,  there  were  brought 
under  complete  control  the  papal  territories.  Following  prolonged 
friction  with  the  Pope,  Napoleon  first  of  all  (April  2,  1808)  annexed 
to  the  kingdom  of  Italy  the  papal  march  of  Ancona  and  the  duchies 
of  Urbino,  Macerata,  and  Camerina,  and  then  (by  decrees  of  May  17, 
1809,  and  February  17,  1810)  added  to  the  French  empire  Rome  itself 
and  the  Patrimonium  Petri.  The  Roman  territory  was  divided  into 
two  departments,  and  in  them,  as  in  all  of  the  Italian  provinces  which 
fell  under  Napoleon's  rule,  a  thoroughgoing  French  system  of  law 
and  administration  was  established.  To  all  of  the  tributary  districts 
alike  were  extended  the  Code  Napoleon,  and  in  them  were  organized 
councils,  courts,  and  agencies  of  control  essentially  analogous  to  those 
which  comprised  the  Napoleonic  governmental  regime  in  France.  In 
them,  likewise,  were  undertaken  public  works,  measures  for  public 
education,  and  social  reforms  similar  to  those  which  in  France  consti- 
tuted the  most  permanent  and  the  most  beneficent  aspects  of  the  Na- 
poleonic domination.  For  the  first  time  since  the  age  of  Justinian  the 
entire  peninsula  was  brought  under  what  was  in  fact,  if  not  in  name,  a 
single  political  system. 

If  the  rise  of  French  power  in  Italy  had  been  brilliant,  however,  the 
collapse  of  that  power  was  speedy  and  complete.  It  followed  hard  upon 
Napoleon's  Russian  campaign  and  the  defeat  at  Leipzig.  The  final  sur- 
render, consequent  upon  Napoleon's  first  abdication  was  made  April  16, 
1814,  by  the  viceroy  Beauharnais,  whereupon  the  Austrians  resumed 
possession  in  the  north,  the  Bourbons  in  the  south,  and  the  whole 
problem  of  permanent  adjustment  was  given  over  to  the  congress  of  the 
powers  at  Vienna.1 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  the  Napoleonic  regime  in  Italy  see  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  IX.,  Chap.  14;  B.  King,  A  History  of  Italian  Unity  (London,  1899),  I., 
Chap.  i.  Works  of  value  dealing  with  the  subject  include  P.  Gaffarel,  Bonaparte 
et  les  r6publiques  italiennes,  1796-1799  (Paris,  1895);  A.  Dufourcq,  Le  regime 
jacobin  en  Italic,  1796-1799  (Paris,  190x3);  F.  Lemmi,  Le  origini  del  risorgimento 
italiano  (Milan,  1906);  G.  Sabini,  I  primi  esperimenti  costituzionali  in  Italia,  1797- 


358  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

II.    THE  RESTORATION  AND  THE  REVOLUTION  or  1848 

392.  Italy  in  1816.— By  the  Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
June  9,  iSi^Ttaly^was  remanded  to  a  status  such  that  the  name  of  the 
peninsula  could  be  characterized  with  aptness  by  Metternich  as  merely  a 
geographical  expression.  In  essentials,  though  not  in  all  respects,  there 
was  a  return  to  the  situation  of  pre-Napoleonic  times.  When  the  bar- 
gainings of  the  diplomats  were  concluded  it  was  found  that  there  re- 
mained, in  all,  ten  Italian  states,  as  follows:  the  kingdom  of  Sardinia, 
Lombardo-Venetia,  Parma,  Modena,  Lucca,  Tuscany,  Monaco,  San 
Marino,  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  and  the  States  of  the  Church.  To  the 
kingdom  of  Sardinia,  reconstituted  under  Victor  Emmanuel  I.,  France 
retroceded  Nice  and  Savoy,  and  to  it  was  added  the  former  republic  of 
Genoa.  Lombardo-Venetia,  comprising  the  duchy  of  Milan  and  all  of 
the  continental  possessions  of  the  former  Venetian  republic,  including 
Istria  and  Dalmatia,  was  given  into  the  possession  of  Austria.1  Tuscany 
was  restored  to  the  grand-duke  Ferdinand  III.  of  Hapsburg-Lorraine; 
the  duchy  of  Modena,  to  Francis  IV.,  son  of  the  archduke  Ferdinand 
of  Austria;  Parma  and  Piacenza  were  assigned  to  Maria  Louisa,  daughter 
of  the  Austrian  emperor  and  wife  of  Napoleon;  the  duchy  of  Lucca, 
to  Maria  Louisa  of  Bourbon-Parma.  In  the  south,  Ferdinand  IV.  of 
Naples,  restored  to  all  of  his  former  possessions,  was  recognized  under 
the  new  title  of  Ferdinand  I.  And,  finally,  Pope  Pius  VII.,  long  held 
semi-prisoner  by  Napoleon  at  Fontainebleau,  recovered  the  whole  of 
the  dominion  which  formerly  had  belonged  to  the  Holy  See. 

Respecting  the  entire  arrangement  two  facts  are  obvious.  The 
first  is  that  there  was  not,  in  the  Italy  of  1815,  the  semblance,  even, 
of  national  unity.  The  second  is  that  the  preponderance  of  Austria 
was  scarcely  less  thoroughgoing  than  in  Napoleon's  time  had  been  that 
of  the  French.  Lombardo-Venetia  Austria  possessed  outright;  Tuscany, 
Modena,  and  Parma  were  ruled  by  Austrian  princes;  Ferdinand  of 
Naples  was  an  Austrian  ally,  and  he  had  pledged  himself  not  to  in- 
troduce in  his  possessions  principles  of  government  incompatible  with 
those  employed  by  the  Austrians  in  the  north;  while  even  Victor  Emman- 
uel of  Sardinia — the  only  important  native  sovereign,  aside  from  the 
Pope,  in  the  peninsula — was  pledged  to  a  perpetual  Austrian  alliance.2 

1815  (Turin,  1911);  and  R.  M.  Johnston,  The  Napoleonic  Empire  in  Southern 
Italy,  2  vols.  (London,  1904).  An  older  work  is  E.  Ramondini,  L'ltalia  durante  la 
dominazione  francese  (Naples,  1882). 

1  By  decree  of  April  24,  1815,  these  territories  were  erected  into  a  kingdom  under 
Austrian  control,  though  possessing  a  separate  administration. 

2  W.  R.  Thayer,  The  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence,  2  vols.  (Boston,  1893), 
L,  116-178. 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY      359 

393.  Foreshadowings  of  Unity. — "Italy,"    wrote   Napoleon   some 
time  after  his  banishment  to  St.  Helena,  "isolated  between  her  natural 
limits,  is  destined  to  form  a  great  and  powerful  nation.    Italy  is  one 
nation;  unity  of  language,  customs,  and  literature,  must,  within  a  period 
more  or  less  distant,  unite  her  inhabitants  under  one  sole  government. 
And,  without  the  slightest  doubt,  Rome  will  be  chosen  by  the  Italians 
as  their  capital."  1    At  the  time  when  this  prophecy  was  written  the 
unification  of  Italy  appeared,  upon  the  surface,  the  most  improbable   . 
of  events.    It  was,  none  the  less,  impending,  and  to  it  Napoleon  must 
be  adjudged  to  have  contributed  in  no  unimportant  measure.    In  the 
words  of  a  recent  writer,  "the  brutalities  of  Austria's  white  coats  in 
the  north,  the  unintelligent  repression  then  characteristic  of  the  house 
of  Savoy,  the  petty  spite  of  the  duke  of  Modena,  the  mediaeval  ob- 
scurantism of  pope  and  cardinals  in  the  middle  of  the  peninsula,  and 
the  clownish  excesses  of  Ferdinand  in  the  south,  could  not  blot  out  from 
the  minds  of  the  Italians  the  recollection  of  the  benefits  derived  from  the 
just  laws,  vigorous  administration,  and  enlightened  aims  of  the  great 
emperor.    The  hard  but  salutary  training  which  they  had  undergone 
at  his  hands  had  taught  them  that  they  were  the  equals  of  the  northern 
races  both  in  the  council  chamber  and  on  the  field  of  battle.    It  had 
further  revealed  to  them  that  truth,  which  once  grasped  can  never  be 
forgotten,  that,  despite  differences  of  climate,  character,  and  speech, 
they  were  in  all  essentials  a  nation."  2    It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
Napoleon  sowed  the  seed  of  Italian  unity. 

394.  Attempted  Revolution,  1820-1832. — From  1815  to  1848  Austrian 
influence,  shaped  largely  by  Metternich,  was  everywhere  reactionary, 
and  during  this  prolonged  period  there  was  no  government  anywhere 
in  Italy  that  was  not  of  the  absolutist  type.    No  one  of  the  states  had 
a  constitution,  a  parliament,  or  any  vestige  of  popular  political  procedure. 
In  July,  1820,  Ferdinand  of  Naples  was  compelled  by  a  revolutionary 
uprising  to  promulgate  a  constitution  which  was  identical  with  that 
forced  in  the  same  year  upon  Ferdinand  VII.  of  Spain.   This  ready-made 
instrument  provided  for  a  popularly  elected  parliament  of  one  chamber, 
upon  which  were  conferred  large  powers;  a  council  of  state  composed 
of  twenty-four  members  to  advise  the  king;  an  independent  judiciary; 
and  a  parliamentary  deputation  of  seven  members  elected  by  the  parlia- 
ment, whose  duty  it  was,  in  the  event  of  the  dissolution  of  parliament, 
to  safeguard  the  observance  of  the  constitution.     In  March,  1821, 
revolution  broke  out  in  Piedmont  and,  after  the  mild-tempered  king, 

1  M.  Cesaresco,  The  Liberation  of  Italy  (London,  1895),  3. 
2J.  Holland  Rose,  in  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  nth  ed.,  XV.,  48.     See  also 
Fisher,  The  Republican  Tradition  in  Europe,  158-159. 


360  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Victor  Emmanuel,  had  abdicated  in  favor  of  his  brother,  Charles  Albert, 
a  temporary  regent,  the  Prince  of  Carignano,  under  pressure,  conceded 
to  the  people  a  replica  of  the  Spanish  fundamental  law.  In  both  Naples 
and  Piedmont,  however,  the  failure  of  the  progressives  was  complete. 
The  reformers  proved  to  be  lacking  in  unity  of  purpose,  and  when, 
under  authorization  of  the  greater  continental  powers,  Austria  inter- 
vened, every  gleam  of  constitutionalism  was  promptly  snuffed  out. 
Similarly,  in  1831-1832,  there  was  in  Modena,  Parma,  and  the  Papal 
States,  widespread  insurrection,  and  with  rather  more  evidence  of  a 
growing  national  spirit;  but  again,  with  Austrian  assistance,  the  out- 
breaks were  suppressed.1 

395.  The  Revolution  of  1848  and  the  New  Constitutions. — The 
turning  point  came  with  the  great  year  ui  revolution,  1848.  During 
the  thirties  and  forties,  by  public  agitation,  by  the  organization  of 
Mazzini's  "Young  Italy,"  by  the  circulation  of  patriotic  literature, 
and  in  a  variety  of  other  ways,  the  ground  was  prepared  systematically 
for  the  risorgimento  upon  which  the  patriots  and  the  prophets  had 
set  their  hearts.  In  1846  a  liberal-minded  pope,  Pius  IX.,  instituted 
a  series  of  reforms,  and  the  example  was  followed  forthwith  by  the 
princes  of  Piedmont  (Sardinia)  and  Tuscany.  In  January,  1848, 
revolution  broke  out  afresh  in  Naples  and  within  a  month  Ferdi- 
nand II.  was  obliged  to  yield  to  public  demand  for  a  constitution.  The 
instrument,  promulgated  February  10,  provided  for  a  legislative 
body  consisting  of  a  chamber  of  peers,  appointed  by  the  king  for  life, 
and  a  chamber  of  deputies,  elected  by  the  people.  February  15  the 
sovereign  of  Tuscany,  Leopold  II.,  granted  to  his  subjects  a  constitu- 
tion of  a  similar  character,  making  provision  for  a  complete  representa- 
tive system. 

February  5  the  municipality  of  Turin,  voicing  a  demand  in  which 
many  of  the  nobility  and  high  officials  of  state  concurred,  petitioned 
Charles  Albert  of  Piedmont  for  the  grant  of  a  constitution.  Three 
days  subsequently,  at  the  conclusion  of  a  series  of  secret  sessions 
of  his  council,  the  sovereign  announced  that  "of  his  free  and  entire 
will"  he  believed  the  time  to  have  come  for  an  extension  to  his  sub- 
jects of  a  full-fledged  representative  system  of  government,  and 
March  4  there  was  promulgated  a  remarkable  instrument — the 
Statute  fondamentale  del  Regno,  modelled  on  the  amended  French 
Charter  of  1830 — which,  with  absolutely  no  modification  of  text, 
survives  to  the  present  day  as  the  constitution  of  the  Italian  king- 

1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X.,  Chap.  4;  Johnston,  Napoleonic  Empire  in 
Southern  Italy,  II.,  Chap.  4;  Thayer,  Dawn  of  Italian  Independence,  I., 
215-278. 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY     361 

dom.1  March  14  there  was  issued  by  the  Pope  an  instrument  known 
as  the  Statuto  fondamentale  del  Governo  temporale,  by  which  were  con- 
stituted two  legislative  bodies — a  high  council  and  a  chamber  of  depu- 
ties— and  a  council  of  state,  composed  of  ten  members  and  twenty- 
four  advisors,  to  which  was  committed  the  task  of  preparing  measures. 
Bills  passed  by  the  parliament  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  Supreme 
Pontiff,  who,  after  their  discussion  in  consistory,  should  extend  to 
them,  or  withhold  from  them,  final  approval.  Before  the  year  was 
far  advanced  the  news  of  the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe,  of  the 
uprising  in  Germany,  and  of  the  fall  of  Metternich  plunged  the 
whole  of  Italy  afresh  in  insurrection.  Under  the  pressure  of  popular 
demand  the  Pope  and  the  King  of  Naples  sent  troops  to  aid  the 
northern  states  in  the  liberation  of  the  peninsula  from  Austrian  des- 
potism, and  for  a  time,  under  the  leadership  of  the  Piedmontese 
monarch,  Charles  Albert,  all  Italy  seemed  united  in  a  broadly  na- 
tionalistic movement.  July  10  a  new  and  extremely  liberal  constitu- 
tion was  adopted  by  a  constituent  assembly  in  Naples,  and,  February  9, 
1849,  following  a  breach  between  the  Pope  and  the  Roman  parliament, 
the  temporal  power  of  the  papacy  was  once  more  swept  away  and 
Rome,  under  an  appropriate  constitution,  was  proclaimed  a  republic.2 
396.  The  Reaction. — The  reaction,  however,  was  swift  and  seem- 
ingly all  but  complete.  At  the  earliest  possible  moment  the  king  of 
Naples  withdrew  from  the  war,  revoked  the  constitution  which  he 
had  granted,  and  put  the  forces  of  liberalism  to  rout.  With  the 
assistance  of  France,  Austria,  and  Naples,  the  Pope  extinguished 
the  Roman  republic  and  re-established  in  all  of  its  vigor  the  temporal 
power.  By  Austrian  arms  one  after  another  of  the  insurrectionary 
states  in  the  north  and  center  was  crushed,  and  Austrian  influence 
in  that  quarter  rose  to  its  former  degree  of  ascendancy.  Constitu- 
tionalism gave  place  to  absolutism,  and  the  liberals,  disheartened 
and  disunited,  were  everywhere  driven  to  cover.  Only  in  Piedmont, 
whose  sovereign,  after  the  bitter  defeat  at  Novara,  had  abdicated 
in  favor  of  his  son,  Victor  Emmanuel  II.  (March  23,  1849),  was  there 
left  any  semblance  of  political  independence  or  civil  liberty.3 

1  The  nature  of  the  governmental  system  provided  in  this  instrument  will  be 
explained  at  length  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 

2  G.  Garavani,  La  costituzione  della  repubblica  romana  nel  1798  e  nel  1849 
(Fermo,  1910). 

3  Elaborate  accounts  of  the  revolution  of  1848  in  Italy  are  contained  in  King, 
History  of  Italian  Unity,  I.,  Chaps.  9-19,  and  Thayer,  Dawn  of  Italian  Independ- 
ence, II.,  Bks.  4-5.     A  good  brief  account  is  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI., 
Chap.  4  (bibliography,  pp.  908-913).    A  suggestive  sketch  is  Fisher,  Republican 
Tradition  in  Europe,  Chap.  9. 


362  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


HI.  THE  ACHIEVEMENT  OF  UNIFICATION 

397.  The  Leadership  of  Piedmont. — To  all  inducements  to  abrogate 
the  constitution  which  his  father  had  granted  Victor  Emmanuel 
continued  deaf,  and  the  logic  of  the  situation  began  to  point  unmistak- 
ably to  Piedmont  as  the  hope  of  the  patriotic  cause.    After  1848  the 
building  of  the  Italian  nation  becomes,  indeed,  essentially  the  story 
of  Piedmontese  organization,  leadership,  conquest,  and  expansion. 
Victor  Emmanuel,  honest  and  liberal-minded,  was  not  a  statesman 
of  the  first  rank,  but  he  had  the  wisdom  to  discern  and  to  rely  upon 
the  statesmanship  of  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  ministers  in  the 
history  of  modern  Europe,  Count  Cavour.    When,  in  1850,  Cavour 
entered  the  Piedmontese  ministry  he"was  known  already  as  an  ardent 
advocate  of  both  constitutionalism  and  national  unification,  and 
after,  in  1852,  he  assumed  the  post  of  premier  he  was  allowed  virtually 
a  free  hand  in  the  prosecution  of  policies  designed  to  contribute  to  a 
realization  of  these  ends.    The  original  purpose  of  the  king  and  of 
his  minister  was  to  bring  about  the  exclusion  of  Austrian  influence 
from  Italy  and  to  organize  the  various  states  of  the  peninsula  into  a 
confederacy  under  the  nominal  leadership  of  the  Pope,  but  under  the 
real  supremacy  of  the  sovereign  of  Piedmont.    Ultimately  the  plan 
was  so  modified  as  to  contemplate  nothing  short  of  a  unification  of 
the  entire  country  under  the  control  of  a  centralized,  national,  tem- 
poral government. 

398.  The  Annexations  of  1859-1860. — In  1855  Cavour  signed  an  offen- 
sive and  defensive  alliance  with  France,  and  in  1859  Piedmont,  with 
the  connivance  of  her  ally,  precipitated  war  with  Austria.    According 
to  an  understanding  arrived  at  by  Cavour  and  the  Emperor  Napo- 
leon III.  at  Plombieres  (June  20,  1858)  Austria  was  to  be  expelled  ab- 
solutely from  Italian  soil;  Lombardo-Venetia,  the  smaller  duchies  of 
the  north,  the  papal  Legations,  and  perhaps  the  Marches,  were  to  be 
annexed  to  Piedmont,  the  whole  to  comprise  a  kingdom  of  Upper 
Italy;  Umbria  and  Tuscany  were  to  be  erected  into  a  kingdom  of 
Central  Italy;  the  Pope  was  to  retain  Rome  and  Ferdinand  Naples; 
and  the  four  states  thus  constituted  were  to  be  formed  into  an  Italian 
confederation.     In  the  contest  which  ensued  the  Austrians  were 
roundly  defeated,  but  their  only  immediate  loss  was  the  ancient  duchy 
of  Lombardy.    Despite  Napoleon's  boast  that  he  would  free  Italy  to 
the  Adriatic,  Venetia  was  retained  yet  seven  years  by  the  Hapsburgs. 
Under  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Zurich  (November  10),  in  which  were 
ratified  the  preliminaries  of   Villafranca  (July  n),  Lombardy  was 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY     363 

annexed  to  Piedmont.  Years  before  (June  8,  1848)  a  Lombard  pleb- 
iscite upon  the  question  of  such  annexation  had  brought  out  an 
affirmative  vote  of  561,002  to  68I.1 

The  gain  arising  from  the  annexation  of  Lombardy  was  in  a  measure 
counterbalanced  by  the  cession  of  Savoy  and  Nice  to  France,  in  con- 
formity with  an  agreement  entered  into  before  the  war.  In  point  of 
fact,  none  the  less,  the  benefits  which  accrued  to  Piedmont  from  the 
Austrian  war  were  enormous.  Aroused  by  the  vigor  and  promise  of 
Piedmontese  leadership,  a  large  portion  of  central  Italy  broke  into 
revolt  and  declared  for  union  with  Victor  Emmanuel's  dominion. 
In  September,  1859,  four  assemblies,  representing  the  grand-duchy  of 
Tuscany,  the  duchies  of  Modena  and  Parma,  and  the  Romagna  (the 
northern  portion  of  the  Papal  States),  met  at  Florence,  Modena, 
Parma,  and  Bologna,  respectively,  and  voted  unanimously  for  in- 
corporation with  Piedmont.  During  March,  1860,  the  alternatives  of 
annexation  and  independence  were  submitted  to  the  choice  of  the 
inhabitants  of  each  of  these  districts,  all  males  of  age  being  privileged 
to  vote,  with  the  result  of  an  aggregate  of  792,577  affirmative  votes  in  a 
total  of  807,502.  Under  authority  conferred  by  the  Piedmontese 
parliament  the  king  accepted  the  territories,  the  formal  proclamation 
of  the  incorporation  of  Parma,  Modena,  and  the  Romagna  being  dated 
March  18,  and  that  of  the  incorporation  of  Tuscany,  March  22.  Dep- 
uties were  elected  forthwith  to  represent  the  annexed  provinces,  and 
April  2,  1860,  the  enlarged  parliament  was  convened  at  Turin.  Within 
the  space  of  a  year  the  population  of  the  kingdom  had  been  more  than 
doubled.  It  was  now  11,000,000,  or  approximately  half  of  that  of  the 
peninsula. 

399.  Further  Annexations:  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  1861. — Mean- 
while the  programme  of  Cavour  and  the  king  had  been  broadened  to 
comprise  a  thoroughgoing  unification  of  the  entire  country.  With 
amazing  rapidity  the  task  was  carried  toward  completion-  Aided  by 
Garibaldi  and  his  famous  Thousand,  the  people  of  Sicily  and  Naples 
expelled  their  Bourbon  sovereign,  and,  at  the  plebiscite  of  October  21, 
1860,  they  declared,  by  a  vote  of  1,734,117  to  10,979,  f°r  annexation  to 
Piedmont.  At  the  same  time  Umbria  and  the  Marches  were  occupied 
by  the  Piedmontese  forces,  leaving  to  the  Pope  nothing  save  the 
Eternal  City  and  a  bit  of  territory  immediately  surrounding  it.  By 
votes  of  97,040  to  380  and  133,077  to  1,212,  respectively,  these  districts 
declared  for  annexation,  and,  December  17,  1860,  a  royal  decree  an- 
nounced their  final  incorporation,  together  with  that  of  Naples. 
January  27,  1861,  general  elections  were  held,  and,  February  18,  there 
1  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  II.,  Chap.  27. 


364  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

was  convened  at  Turin  a  new  and  enlarged  parliament  by  which, 
March  18,  was  proclaimed  the  united  Kingdom  of  Italy.  Over  the 
whole  of  the  new  territories  was  extended  the  memorable  Statuto 
granted  to  Piedmont  by  Charles  Albert  thirteen  years  before,  and 
Victor  Emmanuel  II.  was  acknowleged  "by  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
will  of  the  nation,  King  of  Italy.'7 1 

400.  The  Completion  of  Unification,  186fcr.18.71. —  It  remained  but  to 
consolidate  the  kingdom  and  to  accomplish  the  annexation  of  the  two 
Italian  districts,  Venetia  and  Rome,  which  were  yet  in  foreign  hands. 
Venetia  was  acquired  in  direct  consequence  of  Italy's  alliance  with 
Prussia  against  Austria  in  1866.  A  plebiscite  of  October  21-22,  1866, 
following  the  enforced  cession  of  Venetia  by  Austria,  October  3, 
yielded  a  vote  of  647,246  to  47  for  annexation.  The  union  was  sanc- 
tioned by  a  decree  of  November  4,  1866,  and  ratified  by  a  law  of  July 
1 8,  1867.  The  acquisition  of  Rome  was  made  possible  four  years 
later  by  the  exigencies  of  the  Franco-German  war.  The  conviction 
had  been  ripening  that  eventually  Rome  must  be  made  the  kingdom's 
capital,  and  when,  in  1870,  there  was  withdrawn  from  the  protection 
of  the  papacy  the  garrison  which  France  had  maintained  in  Italy 
since  1849,  the  opportunity  was  seized  to  follow  up  fruitless  diplomacy 
with  military  demonstrations.  September  20  the  troops  of  General 
Cadorna  forced  an  entrance  of  the  city  and  the  Pope  was  compelled  to 
capitulate.  October  2  the  people  declared,  by  a  vote  of  133,681  to 
1,507,  for  annexation;  October  9  the  annexation  was  proclaimed;  and 
December  31  it  was  ratified  by  act  of  parliament.  The  guarantees  of 
independence  to  be  accorded  the  papacy  were  left  to  be  determined  in 
a  subsequent  statute.2  By  an  act  of  February  3,  1871,  the  capital  of 
the  kingdom — already,  in  1865,  transferred  from  Turin  to  Florence — 
was  removed  to  Rome;  and  in  the  Eternal  City,  November  27  follow- 
ing, was  convened  the  eleventh  parliament  since  the  revolution  of 
1848,  the  fourth  since  the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  the 
first  since  the  completion  of  Italian  unity.3 

1  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  II.,  Chaps.  29-32. 

2  The  resulting  measure,  the  Law  of  Papal  Guarantees,  was  enacted  May  13, 
1871.    Seep.  388. 

3  For  a  brief  account  of  the  final  stages  in  the  unification  of  Italy  see  Cambridge 
Modern  History,  XI.,  Chaps.  14,  19.    The  best  presentation  of  the  entire  subject  is 
that  in  the  two  volumes  of  King,  History  of  Italian  Unity,  1814-1871.    Other  works 
of  value  are  W.  J.  Stillman,  The  Union  of  Italy,  1815-1895  (Cambridge,  1898); 
J.  Probyn,  Italy,  1815-1890  (London,  1884);  M.  Cesaresco,  The  Liberation  of  Italy 
(New  York,  1894);  P.  Orsi,  LTtalia  moderna  (Milan,  1901);  F.  Bertolini,  Storia 
dTtalia  dal  1814  al  1878  (Milan,  1880-1881) ;  and  E.  Sorin,  Histoire  de  ITtalie  depuis 
1815  jusqu'a  la  mort  de  V.  Emm.  (Paris,  1910).    Among  biographies  mention  may 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY      365 


IV.  THE  CONSTITUTION 

401.  The    Statute. — The  formal  constitution  of  the  kingdom  of 
Italy  to-day  is  the  Statuto  fondamentale  del  Regno  granted  March  4, 
1848,  by  Charles  Albert  to  his  Piedmontese  subjects.    To  each  of  the 
territories  successively  annexed  to  the  Piedmontese  kingdom   this 
instrument  was  promptly  extended,  on  the  basis  of  popular  ratifica- 
tions, or  plebiscites;  and  when,  in  1861,  the  kingdom  of  Piedmont  was 
converted  into  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  the  fundamental  law,  modified 
in  only  minor  respects,  was  continued  in  operation.    The  Statuto  was 
granted  originally  as  a  royal  charter,  and  its  author  seems  to  have 
expected  it  to  be  final,  at  least  until  it  should  have  been  replaced 
as  a  whole  by  some  other  instrument.    At  the  same  time,  there  is  little 
reason  to  doubt  that  from  the  outset  there  was  contemplated  the 
possibility  of  amendment  through  the  agencies  of  ordinary  legislation. 
In  any  case,  there  was  put  into  the  instrument  no  stipulation  whatso- 
ever relating  to  its  revision,  and  none  has  ever  been  added.    Upon  a 
number  of  occasions  since  1861  possible  modifications  of  the  con- 
stitutional text  have  been  suggested,  and  even  debated,  but  no  one  of 
them  has  been  adopted.  But  this  does  not  mean  that  the  constitutional 
system  of  Italy  has  stood  all  the  while  unchanged.    On  the  contrary, 
that  system  has  exhibited  remarkable  vitality,  growth,  and  adaptive 
capacity.    In  Italy,  as  in  other  states  the  constitution  as  it  exists  in 
writing  is  supplemented  in  numerous  important  ways  by  unwritten 
custom,  and  Italian  jurists  are  now  substantially  agreed  that  custom  is 
legitimately  to  be  considered  a  source  of  public  law. 

402.  Legislative  Amendment. — A  more  important  matter,  however, 
is  the  extension  and  the  readaptation  of  the  constitution  through  par- 
liamentary enactment.    In  the  earlier  days  of  the  kingdom  there  was 
a  disposition  to  observe  rather  carefully  in  practice  the  distinction  be- 
tween functions  and  powers  of  a  legislative,  and  those  of  a  constitu- 
tional, character.    Gradually,  however,  the  conviction  grew  that  the 

be  made  of  G.  Godkin,  Life  of  Victor  Emmanuel  II.  (26  ed.,  London,  1880); 
M.  Cesaresco,  Cavour  (London,  1898);  D.  Zanichelli,  Cavour  (Florence,  1905); 
B.  King,  Mazzini  (London,  1902).  A  very  valuable  biography,  which  indeed  com- 
prises virtually  a  history  of  the  period  1848-1861,  is  W.  R.  Thayer,  Count  Cavour, 
2  vols.  (Boston,  1911).  The  monumental  Italian  work  in  the  field  is  C.  Tivaroni,, 
Storia  critica  del  risorgimento  italiano,  9  vols.  (Turin,  1888-1897).  The  principal 
documentary  collection  is  N.  Bianchi,  Storia  documentata  della  diplomazia 
Europea  in  Italia  dall'  anno  1814  all'  anno  1861,  8  vols.  (Turin,  1865-1872).  In- 
valuable are  L.  Chiala,  Lettere  del  Conte  di  Cavour,  7  vols.  (Turin,  1883-1887),  and 
D.  Zanichelli,  Scritti  del  Conte  di  Cavour  (Bologna,  1892).  For  full  bibliography- 
see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XL,  908-913. 


366  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

constitutional  system  of  the  nation  might  be  modified  through  the 
processes  of  ordinary  legislation,  and  in  Italy  to-day  the  theory  of 
parliamentary  omnipotence  is  scarcely  less  firmly  entrenched  than  it 
is  in  Great  Britain.  The  parliamentary  chambers  have  never  directly 
avowed  a  purpose  to  amend  a  single  article  of  the  Statute,  but  nu- 
merous measures  which  they  have  enacted  have,  with  clear  intent, 
taken  from  the  instrument  at  some  points,  have  added  to  it  at  others, 
and  have  changed  both  its  spirit  and  its  application.  Care  has  been 
exercised  that  such  enactments  shall  be  in  harmony  with  the  public 
will,  and  in  practice  they  are  rarely  brought  to  a  final  vote  until  the 
country  shall  have  been  given  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  them  at  a 
general  election.  What  has  come  to  be  the  commonly  accepted  doc- 
trine was  stated  forcefully,  in  the  session  of  July  23,  1881,  by  Crispi, 
as  follows:  "I  do  not  admit  the  intangibility  of  the  Statuto.  Statutes 
are  made  to  prevent  governments  from  retrograding,  not  from  advanc- 
ing. Before  us  there  can  be  nothing  but  progress.  ...  If  we  retain 
immutable  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state,  we  desire  immobility, 
and  should  throw  aside  all  advances  which  have  thus  far  been  made  by 
the  constituted  authorities.  I  understand  that  in  the  Statute  of  Charles 
Albert  nothing  is  said  of  revision,  and  this  was  prudent.  But  how 
should  this  silence  be  interpreted?  It  should  be  interpreted  in  the 
sense  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  Italian  Constitution  that  a  con- 
stituent assembly  should  be  expressly  convoked,  but  that  Parliament 
in  its  usual  manner  of  operation  is  always  constituent  and  constituted. 
Whenever  public  opinion  has  matured  a  reform,  it  is  the  duty  of  Parlia- 
ment to  accept  it,  even  though  the  reform  may  bring  with  it  the  modifi- 
cation of  an  article  of  the  Statuto"  1  It  is  in  accord  with  the  principles 
here  enunciated  that — to  mention  but  a  few  illustrations — the  law  of 
December  6,  1865,  regulating  the  organization  of  the  judiciary,  the 
Law  of  Papal  Guarantees  of  1871,  and  the  measures  of  1882  and  1895 
overhauling  and  extending  the  franchise,  were  placed  upon  the  stat- 
ute books. 

403.  Nature  of  the  Constitution. — The  Statuto,  in  eighty-four 
articles,  is  an  instrument  of  considerable  length.  It  deals,  successively, 
with  the  Crown,  the  rights  and  duties  of  citizens,  the  Senate,  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies,  the  Ministers,  the  Judiciary,  and  matters  of  a  miscel- 
laneous character.  The  bill  of  rights  contained  in  Articles  24-32 
guarantees  to  all  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom  equality  before  the  law, 
liberty  of  person,  inviolability  of  domicile  and  of  property,  freedom  of 
the  press,  exemption  from  non-parliamentary  taxation  and,  with 

1  Quoted  by  G.  A.  Ruiz,  The  Amendments  to  the  Italian  Constitution,  in  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  Sept.,  1895,  38. 


ITALIAN  CONSTITUTIONS  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY     367 

qualifications,  freedom  of  assembly.  It  is  constantly  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  however,  that,  so  overlaid  is  the  Statuto  with  statutory  enact- 
ments and  with  custom,  that  one  cannot  apprehend  adequately  the 
working  constitution  of  the  kingdom  to-day,  in  respect  to  either  gen- 
eral principles  or  specific  governmental  organs,  through  an  examination 
of  this  document  alone.  In  the  language  of  an  Italian  publicist,  the 
Italian  constitution  no  longer  consists  of  the  Statute  of  Charles  Albert. 
This  forms  simply  the  beginning  of  a  new  order  of  things.  Many  in- 
stitutions have  been  transformed  by  laws,  decrees,  usages,  and  neglect, 
whence  the  Italian  constitution  has  become  cumulative,  consisting  of 
an  organism  of  law  grouped  about  a  primary  kernel  which  is  the 
Statuto.1 

1  Ruiz,  Amendments  to  the  Italian  Constitution,  loc.  cit.,  57.  The  text  of  the 
Statuto  appears  in  P.  Coglio  e  Malchiodi,  Codice  Politico  Amministrativo. 
Raccolta  completa  di  tutte  le  leggi  e  regolamenti  concernenti  la  pubblica  amminis- 
trazione  nei  suoi  rapporti  politici  e  ammimstrativi  (6th  ed.,  Florence,  1907),  and 
in  V.  Gioia,  Le  leggi  di  unificazione  amministrativa  precedute  dalla  legge  fonda- 
mentale  del  regno,  2  vols.  (Palermo,  1879).  It  is  printed  also  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties,  II.,  346-354.  There  is  a  French  version  in  F.  R.  Dareste,  Les 
constitutions  modernes,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1883)  I.,  550-560.  There  is  an  English  trans- 
lation in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  5-16,  and  another,  by  S.  M.  Lindsay  and 
L.  S.  Rowe,  in  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science, 
Nov.,  1894.  The  Codice  Politico  Amministrativo  contains  a  good  collection  of 
statutes,  ordinances,  and  administrative  regulations.  The  most  comprehensive 
work  on  Italian  constitutional  law  which  has  been  written  is  F.  Racioppi  and 
I.  Brunelli,  Commento  allo  statute  del  regno,  3  vols.  (Turin,  1909).  Among  other 
treatises  the  following  are  of  principal  value:  G.  Arangio  Ruiz,  Storia  costituzionale 
del  regno  di  Italia,  1848-1898  (Florence,  1898);  E.  Brusa,  Das  Staatsrecht  des 
Konigreichs  Italien  (Leipzig,  1892),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch;  E.  del  Guerra, 
L'Amministrazione  pubblica  in  Italia  (Florence,  1893);  and,  for  briefer  treatment, 
G.  Mosca,  Appunti  di  diritto  costituzionale  (Milan,  1908)  and  I.  Tambaro,  II  diritto 
costituzionale  italiano  (Milan,  1009). 


CHAPTER  XX 
THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM 

I.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

404.  Status  of  the  Sovereign.— The  constitutional  system  of  Italy 
comprises,  according  to  the  phraseology  of  the  Statute,  a  "  representa- 
tive monarchical  government."  The  throne  is  hereditary,  after  the 
principle  of  the  Salic  Law;  that  is,  it  may  be  inherited  only  by  and 
through  males.  Elaborate  provision  is  made  for  the  exercise  of  regal 
authority  in  the  event  of  the  minority  or  the  incapacity  of  the  sover- 
eign. During  a  minority  (which  terminates  with  the  close  of  the 
king's  eighteenth  year)  the  prince  who  stands  next  in  the  order  of 
succession,  provided  he  be  twenty-one  years  of  age,  is  authorized 
to  act  as  regent.  In  the  lack  of  male  relatives  the  regency  devolves 
upon  the  queen-mother,  and  in  default  of  a  queen-mother  the  regent 
is  elected  by  the  legislative  chamber.1  Upon  ascending  the  throne, 
the  king  is  required  to  take  an  oath  in  the  presence  of  the  legislative 
chambers  faithfully  to  maintain  and  observe  the  constitution  of  the 
realm.  The  monarch  is  declared  to  be  sacred  and  inviolable  in  his 
person,  and  there  is  settled  upon  him  a  civil  list  of  16,050,000  lire, 
of  which  amount  at  present,  however,  the  sum  of  one  million  lire  is 
repaid  annually  to  the  state.  Since  1870  the  royal  residence  has  been 
the  Palazzo  del  Quirinale,  a  palace  which  for  generations,  by  reason 
of  its  elevated  and  healthful  situation,  was  much  frequented  by  the 
popes. 

406.  Powers  and  Functions  of  the  Crown. — On  paper,  the  powers 
of  the  crown  appear  enormous;  in  reality  they  are  much  less  consider- 
able, as  is  inevitably  the  fact  wherever  monarchy  is  tempered  by 
parliamentarism.  In  the  king  alone  is  vested,  by  the  Statuto,  the 
executive  power,  and  to  him  alone  this  power,  in  theory,  still  belongs. 
The  exercise  of  it,  however,  devolves  almost  wholly  upon  a  group  of 
ministers,  who  are  responsible,  not  to  the  crown,  but  to  the  parliament. 
In  no  continental  country  has  there  been  a  more  deliberate  or  a  more 
unreserved  acceptance  of  the  essential  principles  which  underlie  the 

1  Arts.  11-17.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  6* 
368 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  369 

parliamentary  system  of  Great  Britain.  No  one  of  the  three  sov- 
ereigns of  united  Italy  has  ever  sought  for  an  instant  to  establish  any- 
thing in  the  nature  of  personal  government.  The  principle  that  the 
ministry  shall  constitute  the  working  executive,  and  that  it  shall  be 
continually  responsible  to  the  lower  chamber  of  Parliament,  has  been 
so  long  observed  in  practice  that  it  is  now  regarded  as  an  inflexible 
law  of  the  constitution.  Under  these  limitations,  however,  the  king 
approves  and  promulgates  the  laws,  grants  pardons  and  commutes 
sentences,  declares  war,  commands  all  military  and  naval  forces, 
concludes  treaties,  issues  ordinances,  creates  senators,  and  makes 
appointments  to  all  offices  of  state.1  By  the  Statute  it  is  provided  that 
treaties  involving  financial  obligations  or  alterations  of  the  territory 
of  the  state  shall  be  effective  only  after  receiving  the  sanction  of  the 
legislative  chambers.  In  practice,  treaties  of  all  kinds  are  submitted 
regularly  for  such  approval,  save  only  such  as  comprise  military 
conventions  or  foreign  alliances.  The  power  of  the  veto  exists,  but 
it  is  in  practice  never  used.  Rarely  does  the  king  attend  the  sessions 
of  the  cabinet,  in  which  the  policies  of  the  government  are  discussed 
and  its  measures  formulated  and,  save  through  the  designation  of  the 
premier,  in  the  event  of  a  cabinet  crisis,  and  within  the  domain  of 
foreign  relations,  the  royal  power  may  be  said  to  be  brought  to  bear 
in  direct  manner  upon  the  affairs  of  state  only  incidentally.  As  head 
of  the  nation,  however,  and  visible  token  of  its  hard-won  unification, 
the  monarch  fulfills  a  distinctly  useful  function.  The  reigning  family, 
and  especially  the  present  sovereign,  Victor  Emmanuel  III.,  is  ex- 
tremely popular  throughout  the  country;  so  that,  although  in  Italy, 
as  elsewhere  among  European  monarchies,  there  is  an  avowed  repub- 
lican element,  there  is  every  indication  that  royalty  will  prove  an  en- 
during institution. 

406.  The  Ministry:  Composition. — From  what  has  been  said  it 
follows  that  the  ministry  in  Italy,  as  in  Great  Britain  and  France, 
constitutes  the  actual  executive.  Nominally  it  consists  of  heads  of 
departments,  although  occasionally  a  member  is  designated  without 
portfolio.  Of  departments  there  are  at  present  eleven,  as  follows: 
Foreign  affairs;  War;  Marine;  the  Interior;  Finance;  the  Treasury;  2 
Public  Instruction;  Public  Works;  Justice  and  Ecclesiastical  Affairs; 
Commerce,  Industry,  and  Agriculture;  and  Posts  and  Telegraphs. 
Ordinarily  the  premier,  or  "president  of  the  council,"  occupies  the 
portfolio  of  the  Interior.  He  is  named  by  the  king,  and  inasmuch  as, 

1  Arts.  5-8.    Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II.,  5.    Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  I., 
292-297. 

2  Separated  from  Finance  in  1889. 


370  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

by  reason  of  the  multiplicity  of  Italian  political  parties,  there  is  often 
no  clearly  distinguished  "leader  of  the  opposition,"  such  as  all  but 
invariably  stands  ready  to  assume  office  in  Great  Britain,  in  the 
making  of  the  appointment  there  is  room  for  the  exercise  of  consid- 
erable discretion.  All  remaining  members  of  the  ministry  are  desig- 
nated by  the  crown,  on  nomination  of  the  premier.  In  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  a  law  of  February  12,  1888,  each  minister  is 
assisted  by  an  under-secretary  of  state. 

All  ministers  and  under-secretaries  possess  the  right  to  appear  on 
the  floor  of  either  of  the  legislative  chambers,  and  to  be  heard  upon 
request;  but  no  one  of  them  is  entitled  to  vote  in  either  body  unless 
he  is  a  member  thereof.1  To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  a  port- 
folio or  to  an  under-secretaryship  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  be  a 
member  of  either  chamber;  but  if  an  appointee  is  not  in  possession  of 
such  membership  it  is  customary  for  him  to  seek  the  next  seat  that 
falls  vacant  in  the  Deputies,  unless  in  the  meantime  he  shall  have  been 
created  a  senator.  In  point  of  fact,  the  ministers  are  selected  regularly 
from  among  the  members  of  Parliament,  and  predominantly  from  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies.  Only  rarely  has  the  premiership  devolved  upon 
a  senator.  Ministers  of  war  and  of  marine,  being  chosen  largely  by 
reason  of  technical  qualifications,  are  frequently  members  of  the  Senate 
by  special  appointment. 

407.  The  Ministry:  Organization  and  Functions. — The  internal 
organization  of  the  ministry — the  inter-relations  of  the  several  depart- 
ments and  the  relations  sustained  by  each  minister  with  the  premier — 
are  regulated  largely  by  a  decree  of  March  28,  1867,  promulgated  afresh, 
with  minor  modifications,  August  25,  1876.  Among  matters  which 
are  required  to  be  brought  before  the  ministerial  council  are  all  projects 
of  law  which  are  to  be  submitted  to  the  chambers,  all  treaties,  all  con- 
flicts of  administrative  jurisdiction,  all  proposals  relating  to  the  status 
of  the  Church,  petitions  from  the  chambers,  and  nominations  of  senators, 
diplomatic  representatives,  and  a  wide  range  of  administrative  and 
judicial  functionaries.  By  law  there  is  enumerated  further  an  extended 
list  of  matters  which  must  be  brought  to  the  ministry's  attention, 
though  action  thereupon  is  not  made  compulsory;  and  the  range  of 
subjects  which,  upon  the  initiative  of  the  premier  or  that  of  other 
ministers,  may  be  submitted  for  consideration  is  left  purposely  without 
limit.  It  is  the  business  of  the  premier  to  convoke  the  ministers  in  coun- 
cil, to  preside  over  their  deliberations,  to  maintain,  in  respect  to  both  ad- 
ministrative methods  and  political  policy,  as  large  a  measure  of  ministe- 
rial uniformity  and  solidarity  as  may  be;  and  to  require  from  time  to  time 
1  Art.  66.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  13. 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  371 

from  his  colleagues  full  and  explicit  reports  upon  the  affairs  of  each  of  the 
several  departments.  By  reason,  however,  of  the  multiplicity  of  party 
groups  in  the  chambers,  the  necessarily  composite  character  politically 
of  every  cabinet,  and  the  generally  unstable  political  condition  of  the 
country,  ministries  rarely  possess  much  real  unity,  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  public  business  they  are  likely  to  be  handicapped  by 
internal  friction.  "The  Italian  ministry,"  says  an  able  French  writer, 
"is  manifestly  unable  to  fulfill  effectively  the  three-fold  purpose  of  a 
parliamentary  cabinet.  It  exercises  the  executive  power  in  the  name, 
and  under  the  authority,  of  the  king;  but  it  does  not  always  know  how 
to  restrain  Parliament  within  the  bounds  of  its  proper  control,  and  it  is 
obliged  to  tolerate  the  interference  of  deputies  in  the  administration. 
Through  the  employment  of  the  initiative,  and  of  influence  upon  the 
acts  of  Parliament,  it  is  the  power  which  impels  legislation;  but  not  in- 
frequently it  is  lacking  in  the  authority  essential  to  push  through  the 
reforms  which  it  has  undertaken,  and  the  Chamber  evades  easily  its 
control.  It  seeks  to  maintain  harmony  between  the  two  powers  (execu- 
tive and  legislative) ;  but  the  repeated  defeats  which  it  suffers  demon- 
strate to  what  a  degree  its  work  is  impeded  by  the  disorganization  of 
parties."  l  For  all  of  their  acts  the  ministers  are  responsible  directly 
to  Parliament,  which  means,  in  effect,  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies; 
and  no  law  or  governmental  measure  may  be  put  in  operation  until  it 
has  received  the  signature  of  one  or  more  of  the  ministerial  group,  by 
whom  responsibility  for  it  is  thereby  explicitly  assumed. 

408.  The  Promulgation  of  Ordinances.— The  administrative  system 
of  Italy  is  modelled,  in  the  main,  upon  that  of  France.  In  the  effort  to 
achieve  national  homogeneity  the  founders  of  the  kingdom  indulged 
to  excess  their  propensity  for  centralization,  with  the  consequence  that 
Italy  has  exhibited  regularly  an  admixture  of  bureaucracy  and  liberal- 
ism even  more  confounding  than  that  which  prevails  in  the  French 
Republic.  In  theory  the  administrative  system  is  broadly  democratic 
and  tolerant;  in  practice  it  not  infrequently  lends  itself  to  the  employ- 
ment of  the  most  arbitrary  devices.  Abuse  arises  most  commonly  from 
the  powers  vested  in  the  administrative  officials  to  supplement  legis- 
lation through  the  promulgation  and  enforcement  of  ordinances.  By 
the  constitution  it  is  stipulated  that  the  Executive  shall  "make  decrees 
and  regulations  necessary  for  the  execution  of  the  laws,  without  suspend- 
ing their  execution,  or  granting  exemptions  from  them."  2  This  power, 
however,  in  practice,  is  stretched  even  further  than  is  the  similar  power 
of  the  Executive  in  France,  and  with  the  result  not  infrequently  of  the 

1  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  L,  291. 

8  Art.  6.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  5. 


372  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

creation  of  temporary  law,  or  even  the  virtual  negation  of  parliamentary 
enactment.  Parliament  is  seldom  disposed  to  stand  very  rigidly  upon 
its  rights;  indeed,  it  sometimes  delegates  expressly  to  the  ministry  the 
exercise  of  sweeping  legislative  authority.  The  final  text  of  the  great 
electoral  law  of  1882,  for  example,  was  never  considered  in  the  chambers 
at  all.  After  debating  the  subject  to  their  satisfaction,  the  two  houses 
simply  committed  to  the  Government  the  task  of  drawing  up  a  per- 
manent draft  of  the  measure  and  of  promulgating  it  by  executive  decree. 
The  same  procedure  has  been  followed  in  other  fundamental  matters. 
And  not  merely  the  ministers  at  Rome,  but  also  the  local  administrative 
agents,  exercise  with  freedom  the  ordinance-making  prerogative.  "The 
preference,  indeed,"  as  is  observed  by  Lowell,  "for  administrative 
regulations,  which  the  government  can  change  at  any  time,  over  rigid 
statutes  is  deeply  implanted  in  the  Latin  races,  and  seems  to  be  especially 
marked  in  Italy."1 

II.  PARLIAMENT:  THE  SENATE 

409.  Composition. — Legislative  power  in  Italy  is  vested  conjointly 
in  the  king  and  Parliament,  the  latter  consisting  of  two  houses — an 
upper,  the  Senato,  and  a  lower,  the  Camera  de  '  Depulati.  The  Senate 
is  composed  entirely  of  members  appointed  for  life  by  the  crown.  The 
body  is  no  true  sense  a  house  of  peers.  Its  seats  are  not  hereditary  and 
its  members  represent  not  alone  the  great  proprietors  of  the  country 
but  a  wide  variety  of  public  functionaries  and  men  of  achievement. 
In  the  making  of  appointments  the  sovereign  is  restricted  by  the 
necessity  of  taking  all  appointees  from  twenty-one  stipulated  classes 
of  citizens,  and  it  is  required  that  senators  shall  be  of  a  minimum  age 
of  forty  years.  The  categories  from  which  appointments  are  made — 
including  high  ecclesiastics,  ministers  of  state,  ambassadors,  deputies 
of  prolonged  service,  legal  and  administrative  officials,  men  who  during 
as  much  as  seven  years  have  been  members  of  the  Royal  Academy  of 
Sciences  or  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Public  Instruction — may  be 
reduced,  broadly,  to  three:  (i)  high  officials  of  church  and  state; 
(2)  persons  of  fame  in  science  or  literature,  or  who  by  any  kind  of  serv- 
ices or  merit  have  brought  distinction  to  the  country;  and  (3)  persons 
who  for  at  least  three  years  have  paid  direct  property  or  business 
taxes  to  the  amount  of  3000  lire  ($600).  The  total  number  of  members 
when  the  Statute  was  put  in  effect  in  1848  was  78;  the  number  in  1910 
was  383.  The  last-mentioned  number  comprised  the  president  of  the 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  L,  166.  On  the  Italian  executive  see  Dupriez, 
Les  Ministres,  I.,  281-329.  An  essay  of  value  is  M.  Caudel,  Parlementarisme 
italien,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Sept.,  1900. 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  373 

Chamber  of  Deputies,  147  ex-deputies  of  six  years'  service  (or  men  who 
had  been  elected  to  as  many  as  three  parliaments),  one  minister  of 
state,  six  secretaries  of  state,  five  ambassadors,  two  envoys  extraordinary, 
23  officials  of  the  courts  of  cassation  and  of  other  tribunals,  33  military 
and  naval  officials,  eight  councillors  of  state,  21  provincial  functionaries, 
41  members  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Sciences,  three  members  of  the 
Superior  Council  of  Public  Instruction,  two  persons  of  distinguished 
services  to  the  country,  71  payers  of  direct  taxes  in  the  amount  of 
3,000  lire,  and  19  other  scattered  representatives  of  several  categories. 
The  absence  of  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
rupture  with  the  Vatican.  The  last  members  of  this  class  to  be  named 
were  appointed  in  1866. 

410.  Legislative  Weakness. — The  prerogative  of  senatorial  appoint- 
ment has  been  exercised  upon  several  occasions  for  the  specific  purpose 
of  influencing  the  political  complexion  of  the  upper  chamber.    In  1886 
forty-one  appointments  were  made  at  one  stroke;  in  1890,  seventy-five; 
and  in  1892,  forty-two.    The  Senate  guards  jealously  its  right  to  de- 
termine whether  an  appointee  is  properly  to  be  considered  as  belonging 
to  any  one  of  the  twenty-one  stipulated  categories,  and  if  it  decides  that 
he  is  not  thus  eligible,  he  is  refused  a  seat.    But  as  long  as  the  sovereign 
keeps  clearly  within  the  enumerated  classes,  no  practical  limitation 
can  be  placed  upon  his  power  of  appointment.1    In  practice,  appoint- 
ment by  the  king  has  meant  regularly  appointment  by  the  ministry 
commanding  a  majority  in  the  lower  chamber;  and  so  easy  and 
so  effective  has  proved  the  process  of  "swamping"  that  the  legis- 
lative  independence  of    the   Senate   has    been   reduced   almost    to 
a  nullity.     In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  body  exercises  the 
function  of  a  revising,  but  no  longer  of  an  initiating  or  a  checking, 
chamber.   During  the  period  1861-1910  the  government  presented  in  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  a  total  of  7,569  legislative  proposals,  in  the  Senate 
but  598;  and  the  number  of  projects  of  law  originated  within  the  Senate 
during  this  same  period  was  but  thirty-nine.    In  volume  and  range 
of  legislative  activity  the  nominated  senate  of  Italy  is  distinctly  inferior 
to  the  elected  senate  of  France.2 

411.  Projected  Reform. — Within  recent  years  there  has  arisen  a 
persistent  demand  for  a  reform  of  the  Senate,  to  the  end  that  the 

1  Of  1,528  appointments  made  between  1848  and  1910  but  63  were  refuseci  con- 
firmation by  the  Senate. 

2  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that,  in  the  interest  of  governmental  stability  and 
permanence,  Cavour  favored  the  adoption  of  the  elective  principle  in  Italy.    For 
illustrations  of  the  weakness  of  the  Italian  Senate  see  C.  Morizot-Thibault,  Des 
droits  des  chambers  hautes  ou  senats  en  matiere  des  lois  de  finance  (Paris,  1891), 
156-175- 


374  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

body  may  be  brought  into  closer  touch  with  the  people  and  may 
be  restored  to  the  position  of  a  vigorous  and  useful  second  chamber. 
In  the  spring  of  1910  the  subject  was  discussed  at  some  length 
within  the  Senate  itself,  and  at  the  suggestion  of  the  ministry  a  special 
commission  of  nine  members  was  created  to  study  "the  timeliness, 
the  method,  and  the  extent "  of  the  proposed  reforms.  December  5, 
1910,  this  commission  brought  in  an  elaborate  report,  written  principally 
by  Senator  Arcoleo,  a  leader  among  Italian  authorities  upon  con- 
stitutional law.  After  pointing  out  that  among  European  nations  the 
reconstitution  and  modernization  of  upper  chambers  is  a  subject  of 
large  current  interest,  the  commission  proposed  a  carefully  considered 
scheme  for  the  popularizing  and  strengthening  of  the  senatorial  body. 
The  substance  of  the  plan  was,  in  brief;  (i)  that  the  chamber  henceforth 
should  be  composed  of  350  members;  (2)  that  the  membership  should 
be  divided  into  three  categories,  designated,  respectively,  as  officials, 
men  of  science  and  education,  and  men  of  political  or  economic  status; 
and  (3)  that  members  of  the  first  category,  not  to  exceed  120,  should  be 
appointed,  as  are  all  members  at  present,  by  the  crown;  but  members 
of  the  other  two  should  be  elected  by  fifteen  special  colleges  so  con- 
stituted that  their  membership  would  represent  actual  and  varied  groups 
of  interests  throughout  the  nation.  The  professors  in  the  universities, 
for  example,  organized  for  the  purpose  as  an  electoral  college,  should  be 
authorized  to  choose  a  contingent  of  thirty  representatives.  Other  ele- 
ments to  be  admitted  to  a  definite  participation  in  the  elections  should 
include  former  deputies,  larger  taxpayers,  provincial  and  communal 
assemblies,  chambers  of  commerce,  agricultural  societies,  and  working- 
men's  associations.  The  primary  idea  of  those  who  propounded  the 
scheme  was  that  through  its  adoption  there  would  be  established  a  more 
vital  contact  between  the  Senate  and  the  varied  forces  that  contribute 
to  the  life  of  the  nation  than  can  subsist  under  the  existing  order.  Unfor- 
tunately, as  many  consider,  the  Senate  voted  not  to  approve  the  com- 
mission's project.  It  contented  itself,  rather,  with  a  vote  in  favor  of 
an  enlargement  of  the  classes  of  citizens  from  which  senators  may  be 
appointed  by  the  king,  although,  in  February,  1911,  it  went  so  far  as  to 
request  the  ministry  to  present  new  proposals,  and,  in  particular,  a 
proposal  to  vest  in  the  Senate  the  choice  of  its  presiding  officer.  To- 
ward a  solution  of  the  problems  involved  there  has  been  (to  1912)  no 
further  progress.  It  is  not  improbable,  however,  that  upon  some  such 
plan  of  modernization  as  was  prepared  by  the  commission  of  1910  agree- 
ment eventually  will  be  reached.1 

1E.  Pagliano,  II  Senate  e  la  nomina  dei  senator!  (Rome,  1006);  L.  A.  Magro, 
L'  aristocrazia  e  il  Senate  (Catania,  1909);  I.  Tambaro,  La  r£forme  du  Senat 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  375 

412.  Privileges  and  Powers. — Within  the  Senate,  as  to-day  con- 
stituted, the  president  and  vice-president  are  named  by  the  king;  the 
secretaries  are  selected  by  the  body  from  its  own  membership.    The 
privileges  of  members  are  denned  minutely.    Save  by  order  of  the 
Senate  itself,  no  senator  may  be  arrested,  unless  apprehended  in  the 
commission  of  an  offense;  and  the  Senate  is  constituted  sole  judge  of 
the  alleged  misdemeanors  of  its  members — a  curious  duplication  of 
an  ancient  prerogative  of  the  British  House  of  Lords.    Ministers  are 
responsible  only  to  the  lower  house,  and  although  there  are  instances 
in  which  a  minister  has  retired  by  reason  of  an  adverse  vote  in  the 
Senate,  in  general  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  Senate's  importance  in 
the  parliamentary  regime  is  distinctly  subordinate.   The  two  chambers 
possess  concurrent  powers  of  legislation,  except  that  all  measures  im- 
posing taxes  or  relating  to  the  budget  are  required  to  be  presented  first 
in  the  Deputies.   By  decree  of  the  crown  the  Senate  may  be  constituted 
a  High  Court  of  Justice  to  try  cases  involving  treason  or  attempts  upon 
the  safety  of  the  state,  and  to  try  ministers  impeached  by  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies.    When  acting  in  this  capacity  the  body  is  a  tribunal 
of  justice,  not  a  political  organization;  but  it  is  forbidden  to  occupy 
itself  with  any  judicial  matters  other  than  those  for  which  it  was 
convened.1 

III.  THE  CHAMBER  OF  DEPUTIES — PARLIAMENTARY  PROCEDURE 

413.  Composition:  Franchise  Law  of  1882. — The  lower  legislative 
chamber  is  composed  of  508  members  chosen  by  the  voters  of  the  realm 
under  the  provisions  of  the  electoral  law  of  March  28,  1895.    ^n  no 
country  of  western  Europe  is  the  privilege  of  the  franchise  more 
restricted  than  in  Italy;  yet  progress  toward  a  broadly  democratic 
scheme  of  suffrage  has  been  steady  and  apparently  as  rapid  as  condi- 
tions have  warranted.    The  history  of  the  franchise  since  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  present  kingdom  falls  into  three  periods,  delimited 
by  the  electoral  laws  of  1882  and  1895.    Prior  to  1882  the  franchise 
was,  in  the  main,  that  established  by  the  electoral  law  of  December 
17,  1860,  modified  by  amendments  of  July,  1875,  and  May,  1877.    It 
was  restricted  to  property-holders  who  were  able  to  read  and  write, 
who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  who  paid  an  annual  tax 

italien,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public,  July-Sept.,  1910,  and  Les  d6bats  sur  la  re"forme 
du  Senat  italien,  ibid.,  July-Sept.,  1911;  M.  Scelle,  Re'forme  du  S£nat  italien,  ibid., 
Oct.-Dec.,  1911;  Nazzareno,  La  riforma  del  Senate,  in  Rivista  di  Diritto  Pubbltca, 
III.,  171.  The  report  of  the  commission  of  1910  is  contained  in  Per  la  riforma  del 
Senate;  relazione  della  commissione  (Rome,  1911). 
1  Art.  36.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  10. 


376  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  at  least  forty  lire.  Under  this  system  less  than  two  and  a  half  per 
cent  of  the  population  possessed  the  right  to  vote. 

In  1882,  after  prolonged  consideration  of  the  subject,  the  Govern- 
ment carried  through  Parliament  a  series  of  measures — co-ordinated 
in  the  royal  decree  of  September  24 — by  which  the  property  qualifica- 
tion was  reduced  from  forty  lire  to  nineteen  lire  eighty  centesimi  and 
the  age  limit  was  lowered  to  twenty-one  years.  The  disqualification 
of  illiteracy  was  retained,  and  a  premium  was  placed  upon  literacy  by 
the  extension  of  the  franchise,  regardless  of  property,  to  all  males  over 
twenty-one  who  had  received  a  primary  school  education.  There  were 
minor  extensions  in  other  directions.  The  net  result  of  the  law  of 
1882  was  to  raise  the  number  of  voters  at  a  stroke  from  627,838  to 
2,049,461,  about  two- thirds  of  the  new  voters  obtaining  the  franchise 
by  reason  of  their  ability  to  meet  the  educational  qualification.1  An 
incidental  effect  of  the  reform  was  to  augment  the  political  influence 
of  the  cities,  because  in  them  the  proportion  of  illiterates  was  smaller 
than  in  the  country  districts.  Small  landed  proprietors,  though  of  a 
more  conservative  temperament,  and  not  infrequently  of  a  better 
economic  status,  than  the  urban  artisans,  were  commonly  unable  to 
fulfill  the  scholarship  qualification. 

The  law  of  1882  provided  for  elections  by  general  ticket,  i.  e.,  on  the 
principle  of  scrutinio  di  lista.  An  act  of  May  8,  1891,  abolished  the 
general  ticket  and  created  a  commission  by  which  the  country  was 
divided  into  508  electoral  districts,  each  entitled  to  choose  one  deputy. 
By  a  law  of  June  28,  1892,  there  were  introduced  various  reforms  in 
the  control  and  supervision  of  elections,  and  by  another  of  July  n, 
1894,  new  provisions  were  established  for  the  revision  of  electoral  and 
registration  lists.  Finally,  March  28,  1895,  there  was  promulgated  an 
elaborate  royal  decree  whereby  the  entire  body  of  electoral  laws  en- 
acted since  the  establishment  of  constitutional  government,  and  at  the 
time  continuing  in  operation,  was  co-ordinated  afresh.  The  existing 
system  was  not  altered  fundamentally,  although  the  method  of  making 
up  the  voting-lists  was  changed,  with  the  result  that  the  number  of 
electors  was  somewhat  diminished. 

414.  The  Franchise  To-day. — The  Italian  voter  to-day  must  possess 
the  following  qualifications:  (i)  Italian  citizenship;  (2)  age  of  twenty- 
one,  or  over;  (3)  ability  to  read  and  write;  and  (4)  successful  passage 
of  examinations  in  the  subjects  comprised  in  the  course  of  compulsory 
elementary  education.  The  last-mentioned  qualification  is  not,  how- 
ever, required  of  officials,  graduates  of  colleges,  professional  men, 
persons  who  have  served  two  years  in  the  army,  citizens  who  pay  a 
1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  I.,  157. 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  377 

direct  tax  annually  of  not  less  than  nineteen  lire  eighty  centesimi,  those 
who  pay  an  agricultural  rental  of  500  lire,  those  who  pay  house  rent 
of  from  150  lire  in  communes  of  2,500  people  to  400  lire  in  communes  of 
over  150,000,  and  certain  less  important  classes.  So  serious  at  all 
times  has  seemed  the  menace  of  illiteracy  in  Italy  that  the  establish- 
ment of  manhood  suffrage  has  but  rarely  been  proposed.  Under  the 
existing  system  the  extension  of  education  carries  with  it  automatically 
the  expansion  of  the  franchise,  though  the  obstacles  to  universal  educa- 
tion are  still  so  formidable  that  the  democratizing  of  the  state  proceeds 
but  slowly.1  In  1904  the  number  of  enrolled  electors  was  2,541,327 — 
29  per  cent  of  the  male  population  over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and 
7.67  per  cent  of  the  total  population — exclusive  of  26,056  electors 
temporarily  disfranchised  by  reason  of  being  engaged  in  active  military 
service.  At  the  elections  of  November,  1904,  the  number  of  qualified 
electors  who  voted  was  1,593,886,  or  but  62.7  per  cent  of  those  who 
possessed  the  privilege.  The  proportion  of  registered  electors  who  ac- 
tually vote  is  kept  down  by  the  prosaic  character  of  Italian  electoral 
campaigns,  by  the  influence  of  the  papal  Non  Expedit,2  and,  most  of 
all,  by  the  habitual  indifference  of  citizens,  who,  if  the  truth  be  told, 
for  the  most  part  have  never  displayed  an  insatiable  yearning  for  the 
possession  of  the  voting  privilege.  With  the  exception  of  the  Socialists, 
no  party  has  a  clear-cut,  continuous  programme;  none,  save  again  the 
socialists,  attempts  systematically  to  arouse  the  voters  at  election 
time. 

416.  Electoral  Reform. — Notwithstanding  these  facts,  there  has 
been,  in  recent  years,  a  somewhat  insistent  demand  for  electoral 
reform.  The  Luzzatti  ministry  fell,  in  March,  1911,  primarily  because 
a  plan  of  suffrage  extension  which  it  had  proposed  was  not  to  be  put 
in  operation  before  1913.  June  10,  1911,  the  Giolitti  ministry  which 
succeeded  laid  before  the  Chamber  the  text  of  a  measure  which,  if 
adopted,  would  go  far  toward  the  establishment  of  universal  male 
suffrage.  The  proposal  was  that  practically  all  male  citizens  over 
thirty  years  of  age,  and  all  over  twenty-one  who  have  performed  the 
military  service  required  by  the  state,  should  be  given  the  privilege 
of  voting,  irrespective  of  their  ability  to  read  and  write.  This  project, 
after  being  debated  at  length,  was  adopted  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
early  in  1912  by  the  enormous  majority  of  392  to  61.  In  the  event  of 
its  final  enactment  the  existing  electorate  will  be  increased  from  three 
millions  to  two  and  a  half  times  that  number  and  a  general  overhauling 
of  electoral  methods  and  machinery  will  be  rendered  necessary.  The 

1  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  Chap.  12. 
»  See  p.  400. 


378  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

grounds  upon  which  the  change  is  urged  are,  first,  the  example  of  other 
nations  and,  second,  the  political  and  economic  progress  which  Italy 
has  achieved  within  the  past  generation.  Serious  students  doubt 
whether  the  time  is  ripe  for  so  radical  a  step.  One  half  of  the  pro- 
posed electorate  would  be  wholly  illiterate.1 

416.  Electoral  Procedure. — Save  during  the  years  1882-91,  when 
the  scrutinio  di  lista  was  in  operation,  deputies  have  been  chosen  uni- 
formly from  single-member  districts.    There  are  to-day  508  such  dis- 
tricts.   No  candidate  is  returned  unless  he  not  only  polls  a  number  of 
votes  in  excess  of  one-sixth  of  the  total  number  of  enrolled  electors 
within  the  district,  but  has  also  an  absolute  majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast.    If,  after  balloting,  it  is  found  that  no  candidate  meets  this  re- 
quirement, a  second  ballot  (ballottaggio)  takes  place  one  week  subse- 
quently.2  At  each  polling  place  the  presiding  officer  and  "scrutineers" 
are  chosen  by  the  voters  present.    The  method  of  voting  is  simple.    In 
the  polling-booth  stands  a  table,  on  which  are  placed  two  square  glass 
boxes,  one  empty,  the  other  containing  the  voting  papers.    As  the  list 
of  enrolled  electors  is  read  alphabetically,  each  man  steps  forward, 
receives  a  ballot  paper,  takes  it  to  an  adjoining  table  and  writes  on  it 
the  name  of  the  candidate  for  whom  he  wishes  to  vote,  folds  the  paper, 
and  deposits  it  hi  the  box  reserved  for  the  purpose.    After  the  list  has 
been  read  through  it  is  the  right  of  any  voter  who  was  not  present  to 
respond  when  his  name  was  called  to  cast  his  ballot  in  a  similar 
manner.    The  polling  hours  extend,  as  a  rule,  from  9  A.  M.  to  4  P.  M.3 

417.  Qualifications  and  Privileges  of  Members. — A  deputy  is  not 
required  to  be  a  resident  of  the  district  from  which  he  is  chosen.    He 
must,  however,  be  a  citizen;  must  be  at  least  thirty  years  of  age;  must 
be  in  possession  of  full  civil  and  political  rights;  and  must  not  belong 

1  For  the  text  of  the  Giolitti  proposals  see  //  Seculo,  June  n,  1911.    On  Italian 
electoral  reform  see  A.  Piebantoni,  La  riforma  della  legge  elettorale  (Naples,  1909); 
G.  Bandini,  La  riforma  elettorale  con  la  rappresentanza  proporzionale  nelle  elezioni 
politiche  (Rome,  1910);  G.  Sabini,  La  riforma  del  sistema  elettorale  in  Italia 
(Turin,  1910);  Siotto-Pintor,  Estensione  del  suffragio  e  distribuzione  della  rap- 
presentanza, in  Rivista  di  Diritto  Pubblico,  Dec.,  1911,  and  Le  riforma  del  regime 
elettorale  e  le  dottrine  della  rappresentanza  politica  e  dell'  elettorato  nel  secolo  XX. 
(Rome,  1912). 

2  At  the  elections  of  March,  1909,  in  75  of  the  508  districts  no  candidate  received 
an  adequate  majority.    In  57  of  these  districts  the  candidate  who,  at  the  first  ballot, 
had  received  the  largest  number  of  votes  was  elected  at  the  second  ballot.    The 
political  effect  of  the  second  ballot  is  slight.    At  the  election  of  1900  there  were  77 
second  ballotings;  at  that  of  1904,  39.    A.  N.  Holcombe,  Direct  Primaries  and  the 
Second  Ballot,  in  Amer.  Political  Science  Review,  Nov.,  1911;  A.  F.  Locatelli, 
Considerazioni  intorno  all'  opportunita  di  abolire  il  ballottaggio,  in  La  Riforma 
Sociale,  July-Aug.,  1910. 

3  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  14. 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  379 

to  any  of  the  classes  or  professions  whose  members  are  debarred  by 
law.  All  salaried  government  officials,  all  persons  receiving  stipends 
from  the  state,  and  all  persons  ordained  for  the  priesthood  or  filling 
clerical  office  are  disqualified  outright.  Furthermore,  while  officers  in 
the  army  and  navy,  ministers,  under-secretaries,  and  various  other 
higher  functionaries  may  be  elected,  their  number  must  never  exceed 
forty,  not  including  the  ministers  and  under-secretaries.  Neither 
senators  nor  deputies  receive  a  salary  or  other  compensation,  a  fact 
that  undoubtedly  accounts  hi  some  measure  for  the  uniformly  slender 
attendance  in  the  chambers.  Members  are  permitted,  however,  to 
travel  free  throughout  Italy  by  rail,  or  on  steamers  belonging  to  lines 
that  have  a  government  contract  containing  a  stipulation  upon  the 
subject.  Measures  providing  for  the  payment  of  members  have  been 
proposed  from  time  to  time,  but  none  have  received  the  approval  of 
the  two  chambers.  A  measure  of  the  sort  introduced  in  1882  by  Fran- 
cesco Crispi,  when  a  deputy,  was  rejected  by  the  lower  house.  More 
recently,  in  the  electoral  bill  voted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  1912 
provision  is  made  for  the  payment  of  deputies;  but  at  the  time  of 
writing  final  action  upon  this  project  has  not  been  taken.  Deputies 
are  elected  nominally  for  a  five-year  period,  which  is  the  maximum 
duration  of  a  parliament.  In  point  of  fact,  a  dissolution  is  practically 
certain  to  intervene  before  the  expiration  of  the  full  term,  and  the 
average  interval  between  elections  is  nearer  three  years  than  five.  If 
for  any  reason  a  deputy  ceases  to  perform  his  duties,  the  electoral 
district  that  chose  him  is  called  upon  forthwith  to  elect  a  new  repre- 
sentative. 

418.  The  Chambers:  Organization. — The  constitution  does  not 
prescribe  definitely  that  the  parliament  shall  be  assembled  annually. 
It  stipulates  merely  that  the  sessions  of  the  two  houses  shall  begin 
and  end  at  the  same  time,  that  a  meeting  of  one  house  at  a  time  when 
the  other  is  not  in  session  is  illegal,  and  that  measures  enacted  under 
such  circumstances  are  void.1  Custom  and  the  necessities  of  admin- 
istration, however,  render  it  incumbent  upon  the  crown  to  convoke 
the  chambers  in  at  least  one  session  each  year,  unless,  indeed,  as  has 
sometimes  happened,  a  session  is  so  prolonged  as  to  extend,  with 
occasional  recesses,  over  an  entire  year,  or  even  two  years. 

The  president  and  vice-president  of  the  Senate  are  designated  by 
the  crown,  but  the  president,  vice-presidents,  and  secretaries  of  the 
lower  chamber  are  chosen  by  the  chamber  itself  from  among  its  own 
members  at  the  beginning  of  each  session,  for  the  entire  session.  The 
president  of  the  Deputies,  although  empowered  to  appoint  certain 
1  Art.  48.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  12. 


380  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

committees,  such  as  those  on  rules  and  contested  elections,  is  not 
infrequently  re-elected  again  and  again  without  regard  to  party  affil- 
iations, after  the  manner  of  the  Speaker  of  the  British  House  of  Com- 
mons. The  membership  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  divided  into 
nine  uffici,  or  sections,  and  that  of  the  Senate  into  five.  A  fresh  divi- 
sion, by  lot,  takes  place  every  two  months.  The  principal  function 
of  the  ufficl  is  the  election  of  those  committees  for  whose  constitution 
no  other  provision  is  made.  In  each  chamber  the  most  important 
of  all  committees,  that  on  the  budget,  is  elected  directly  by  the  cham- 
ber. In  the  Deputies  certain  other  committees  are  elected  in  the  same 
way,  while,  as  has  been  said,  those  on  elections  and  on  rules  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  president.  But  committees  specially  constituted  for 
the  consideration  of  particular  measures  are  made  up  of  members 
chosen  from  the  various  uffici,  unless  the  chamber  prefers  to  designate 
some  other  method. 

419.  The  Chambers:  Procedure. — Each  house  frames  its  own  rules 
of  procedure.  By  the  constitution  it  is  stipulated  that  the  sessions 
shall  be  public  (with  the  provision  that  upon  the  written  request  of  ten 
members  secret  sessions  may  be  held) ;  that  Italian  shall  be  the  official 
language;  that  no  session  or  vote  of  either  house  shall  be  valid  unless 
an  absolute  majority  of  the  members  is  present;  and  that  neither  house 
shall  receive  any  deputation,  or  give  hearings  to  persons  other  than  the 
legislative  members,  ministers,  and  commissioners  of  the  Government.1 
Except  such  as  relate  to  finance,  bills  on  any  subject  may  originate  in 
either  house,  and  at  the  initiative  of  the  Government  or  of  private 
members,  though  in  practice  all  proposals  of  importance  emanate  from 
the  Quirinal.  The  ministers  appear  regularly  on  the  floor  of  the  two 
chambers,  to  advocate  the  measures  of  the  Government  and  to  reply 
to  inquiries.  The  right  of  interpellation  is  not  infrequently  exercised, 
though  the  debate  and  vote  following  a  challenge  of  the  ministry  fall 
regularly  after  an  interval  of  some  days,  instead  of  at  once,  as  in  the 
French  system,  thus  guarding  somewhat  against  precipitancy  of  ac- 
tion. A  measure  which  is  passed  in  one  house  is  transmitted  to  the 
other  for  consideration.  After  enactment  in  both  houses,  it  is  pre- 
sented to  the  king  for  approval,  which,  in  practice,  is  never  with- 
held. A  bill  rejected  by  the  crown,  or  by  either  house,  may  not  be 
reintroduced  during  the  same  session.  Votes  are  taken  by  rising  and 
sitting,  by  division,  or  by  secret  ballot.  The  third  of  these  methods 
is  obligatory  in  all  final  votes  on  enactments,  and  on  measures  of  a 

1  Arts.  52-54,  59,  62.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  12-13.  In  practice  the 
requirement  of  the  presence  of  an  absolute  majority  of  members  is  sometimes  dis- 
regarded. 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  381 

personal  character.  It  is  specifically  enjoined  that  deputies  shall 
represent  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  not  the  districts  from  which  they 
are  chosen,  and  to  this  end  no  binding  instructions  may  be  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  electors.1  Except  when  taken  in  the  actual  com- 
mission of  an  offense,  deputies  are  exempt  from  arrest  during  the 
continuance  of  a  session,  and  they  may  not  be  proceeded  against  in 
criminal  matters  without  the  previous  consent  of  the  Chamber. 
Neither  senators  nor  representatives  may  be  called  to  account  for 
opinions  expressed,  or  for  votes  cast,  in  the  performance  of  their  offi- 
cial functions. 

IV.  THE  JUDICIARY 

420.  General  Aspects. — The  provisions  of  the  Statute  respecting 
the  administration  of  justice  are  brief  and  general.    Justice,  it  is 
declared,  emanates  from  the  king  and  is  administered  in  his  name  by 
the  judges  whom  he  appoints.    These  judges,  after  three  years  of 
service,  are  irremovable.     Proceedings  of  courts  in  civil  cases  and 
hearings  in  criminal  cases  are  required  to  be  public.    No  one  may  be 
withdrawn  from  his  ordinary  legal  jurisdiction;  and  no  modification 
may  be  introduced  in  respect  to  courts,  tribunals,  or  judges,  save  by 
law.2   On  the  basis  of  these  principles  there  has  been  built  up  a  system 
of  tribunals  which  differs  in  but  few  important  respects  from  the 
systems  in  operation  in  the  other  Latin  countries  of  Europe.     It 
consists,  in  part,  of  courts  which  have  been  carried  over  from  the 
period  preceding  Italian  unification  and,  in  part,  of  courts  which  owe 
their  existence  to  legislation  subsequent  to  1861.    The  model  upon 
which  the  system  has  been  developed  is  the  judicial  hierarchy  of 
France,  and  it  differs  from  this  system  in  little  save  the  existence,  as 
will  appear,  of  five  largely  independent  courts  of  cassation  instead  of 
one. 

421.  The  Ordinary  Courts. — For  purposes  of  justice  the  kingdom  is 
divided  into  1,535  mandamenti?  162  tribunal  districts,  and  20  appellate 
court  districts.    Within  each  mandamento  is  a  pretura,  or  magistracy, 
which  exercises  jurisdiction  in  civil  cases  and  in  cases  of  misdemeanors 
(contrawenzioni)  and  offenses  (delitte)  punishable  by  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  three  months,  or  banishment  not  exceeding  one  year, 

1  Art.  41.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  n. 

2  Arts.  68-73.    Ibid.,  II.,  14-15. 

3  Prior  to  1901  the  administrative  and  electoral  mandamenti  and  the  mandamenti 
gitidiziarii  were  identical  geographically,  and  there  were  i  ,805  of  them  in  the  king- 
dom.   By  a  law  of  the  year  mentioned  the  judicial  mandamenti  were  reduced  in 
number  to  1,535. 


382  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

or  a  fine  not  exceeding  1,000  lire.  In  minor  civil  cases,  involving  sums 
not  in  excess  of  100  lire,  jurisdiction  is  vested  in  justices  of  the  peace 
(giudici  conciliator  i)  who  likewise,  upon  request,  act  as  arbitrators  in 
cases  involving  any  amount.  In  each  of  thirteen  of  the  largest  towns 
there  is  a  pretura  which  exercises  penal  jurisdiction  exclusively.  Next 
above  the  pretori  stand  the  penal  courts,  one  in  each  of  the  162  tribunal 
districts.  These  exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  first  instance  in  offenses 
involving  a  maximum  imprisonment  of  ten  years  or  a  fine  of  more  than 
1,000  lire.  To  them  appeal  may  be  carried  from  the  decisions  of  the 
pretori.  Closely  associated  are  the  courts  of  assize,  which  possess 
original  jurisdiction  in  cases  involving  a  penalty  of  imprisonment  for 
life,  or  for  a  period  longer  than  a  minimum  of  five,  and  a  maximum  of 
ten,  years.  Save  when  the  Senate  is  constituted  a  high  court  of  justice, 
these  tribunals  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  all  press  offenses  and  of 
all  cases  involving  attacks  upon  the  security  of  the  state.  As  a  rule, 
the  courts  of  assize  make  use  of  the  jury.  From  their  decisions  there 
is  no  appeal,  save  upon  a  point  of  form,  and  appeal  lies  solely  to  the 
court  of  cassation  at  Rome.  From  the  penal  tribunals  appeal  lies, 
in  cases  not  dealt  with  by  the  assize  courts,  to  the  twenty  courts  of 
appeal. 

At  the  top  of  the  system  stand  five  largely  independent  courts  of 
cassation,  located  at  the  old  capitals  of  Turin,  Florence,  Naples, 
Palermo,  and  Rome.  Each  of  these  exercises,  within  its  own  territory, 
final  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  involving  the  ordinary  civil  law.  The 
court  of  cassation  at  Rome,  it  is  true,  has  been  given  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion in  conflicts  of  competence  between  different  courts,  conflicts 
between  the  courts  and  the  administrative  authorities,  the  transfer 
of  suits  from  one  tribunal  to  another,  writs  of  error  in  criminal  cases, 
and  a  variety  of  other  special  matters.  But,  aside  from  this,  the  five 
tribunals  are  absolutely  equal  in  function;  there  is  no  appeal  from  one 
to  another,  and  the  decisions  arrived  at  by  one  do  not  constitute 
precedents  which  the  others  are  obligated  to  recognize.  One  of  the 
most  striking  aspects,  indeed,  of  the  Italian  judicial  system  is  its  lack 
of  centralization;  though  it  should  be  added  that  the  centralizing 
principle  which,  since  1870,  has  dominated  so  notably  all  other  depart- 
ments of  the  government  has  been  gradually  winning  its  way  in  the 
judiciary. 

422.  The  Administrative  Courts. — In  Italy,  as  in  continental 
countries  generally,  there  is  preserved  a  sharp  distinction  between 
public  and  private  law;  but  the  separation  of  functions  of  the  ordinary 
and  the  administrative  courts  is  much  less  clear-cut  than  in  France 
and  elsewhere.  In  1865,  indeed,  the  surviving  administrative  courts 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  383 

of  the  states  which  had  been  drawn  into  the  kingdom  were  abolished 
and  it  was  arranged  that  the  ordinary  courts  should  exercise  unre- 
stricted jurisdiction  in  all  criminal  cases  and  in  all  civil  cases  in  which, 
by  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  State,  a  civil  or  political  right  was 
involved.  The  system  worked  poorly  and  by  laws  of  June  2, 1889,  and 
May  i,  1800,  a  special  section  of  the  Council  of  State  (composed  of  a 
president  and  eight  councillors  named  by  the  king)  was  set  off  to  serve 
as  an  administrative  court,  while  at  the  same  time  an  inferior  admin- 
istrative jurisdiction  was  conferred  upon  the  giunta  (prefect  and  cer- 
tain assistants)  of  the  province.  In  practice  to-day,  when  the  legality 
of  acts  committed  by  the  administrative  officials  is  called  in  question, 
the  ordinary  courts  exercise  jurisdiction,  if  the  question  is  one  of  private 
right;  if  it  is  one  merely  of  private  interest,  it  goes  for  decision  to  an 
administrative  tribunal.  In  most  continental  countries  all  cases  in- 
volving the  legality  of  official  acts  fall  within  the  domain  of  the  ad- 
ministrative courts.1 

V.  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

423.  Historical  Basis. — In  her  ancient  territorial  divisions  Italy 
had  once  the  basis  of  a  natural  and  wholesomely  decentralized  sys- 
tem of  local  government.  Instead  of  availing  themselves  of  it,  how- 
ever, the  founders  of  the  present  kingdom  preferred  to  reduce  the 
realm  to  a  tabula  rasa  and  to  erect  within  it  a  wholly  new  and  sym- 
metrical hierarchy  of  territorial  divisions  and  governmental  organs. 
By  a  great  statute  of  March  20,  1865,  there  was  introduced  in  the 
kingdom  a  system  of  provincial  and  communal  organization,  the 
essentials  of  which  were  taken  over  in  part  from  Belgium,  but  more 
largely  from  France.  The  functions  and  relations  of  the  various  local 
agencies  were  amplified  and  given  substantially  their  present  form  in 
the  law  of  December  30,  1888,  supplemented  and  amended  by  acts  of 
July  7, 1889,  and  July  n,  1894.  So  closely  has  the  French  model  been 
adhered  to  throughout  that  the  resemblance  between  the  two  systems 
amounts  almost  to  duplication.  The  system  of  Italy  calls,  therefore, 
for  no  very  extended  independent  description. 

The  units  of  local  government  are  four  in  number — the  province, 
the  circondaro,  the  mandamento,  and  the  commune.  Of  these,  the 
first  and  last  alone  possess  vitality,  distinct  interests,  and  some  meas- 
ure of  autonomy;  and  throughout  the  entire  series  runs  that  same 
principle  of  thoroughgoing  centralization  which  is  the  pre-eminent 

1  There  is  a  brief  description  of  the  Italian  judicial  system  in  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties,  II.,  170-178. 


384  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

characteristic  of  the  local  governmental  system  of  France.  The 
circondaro,  corresponding  to  the  French  arrondissement,  is  essentially 
an  electoral  division.  Strictly,  there  are  in  the  kingdom  197  circondarii; 
but  87  districts  comprising  the  province  of  Mantua  and  the  eight 
provinces  of  Venetia  are,  in  all  save  name,  circondarii  also.  The  1806 
mandamenti,  or  cantons,  are  but  subdivisions  of  the  provinces  for 
administrative  purposes. 

424.  The  Province :  Prefect  and  Council. — There  are  in  the  kingdom 
69  provinces,  varying  considerably  in  size  but  with  an  average  popula- 
tion of  450,000  to  500,000.  The  Italian  province  corresponds  closely 
to  the  French  department.  At  its  head  is  a  prefect,  appointed  by  the 
crown  and  directly  responsible  to  the  Minister  of  the  Interior.  Like 
the  French  prefect,  the  Italian  is  a  political  official,  and  the  fact  not 
merely  influences  his  appointment  but  affects  greatly  his  conduct  in 
office.  As  representative  and  agent  of  the  central  government  the  prefect 
publishes  and  executes  the  laws,  supervises  the  provincial  adminis- 
tration, opens  and  closes  sessions  of  the  provincial  council  and  sanctions 
or  vetoes  the  measures  of  that  body,  and  safeguards  in  general  the 
interests  of  the  Government  in  the  province. 

Within  each  province  is  a  council  of  from  20  to  60  members,  elected 
for  a  period  of  six  years  on  a  franchise  somewhat  broader  than  that 
which  prevails  in  parliamentary  elections.  One-half  of  the  membership 
is  renewed  triennially.  The  council  meets  regularly  once  each  year, 
nominally  for  a  month's  session;  but  an  extraordinary  session  may  be 
convened  at  any  time  by  the  prefect,  by  the  deputation,  or  upon  call 
of  one-third  of  the  councillors.  Aside  from  the  voting  of  the  provincial 
budget,  the  powers  of  the  council  are  relatively  meager.  In  part,  e.  g., 
in  respect  to  the  maintenance  of  highways,  the  control  of  secondary  and 
technical  education,  and  a  share  in  the  supervision  of  charity,  they  are 
obligatory;  in  part  they  are  merely  permissive.  A  deputation,  or  com- 
mission, of  from  six  to  ten  persons,  elected  by  the  council  from  its  own 
membership,  represents  the  council  in  the  intervals  between  its  sittings 
and  carries  on  the  work  which  it  may  have  in  hand.  The  prefect  is 
advised  by  a  prefectorial  council  of  three  members  appointed  by  the 
Government,  and  he  is  further  assisted  by  a  giunta  of  six  members, 
four  of  whom  are  elected  by  the  provincial  council,  the  other  two  being 
drawn  from  the  prefectorial  council.  It  is  the  business  of  the  giunta 
to  assist  the  prefect  and  sub-prefects  in  the  supervision  of  local  adminis- 
tration and  to  serve  as  a  tribunal  for  the  trial  of  cases  arising  under  the 
administrative  law.  The  prefect  and  the  giunta  possess  large,  and  to  a 
considerable  degree,  discretionary  powers  of  control  over  the  proceedings 
of  the  council;  and  the  prefect,  representing  as  he  does  the  central  gov- 


THE  ITALIAN  GOVERNMENTAL  SYSTEM  385 

ernment  exclusively,  can  be  called  to  account  only  by  his  superiors  at 
Rome. 

426.  The  Commune:  Syndic  and  Council. — As  in  France,  the  com- 
mune is  the  least  artificial  and  the  most  vigorous  of  the  local  govern- 
mental units.  In  June,  1911,  there  were  in  Italy  a  total  of  8,323 
communes,  besides  four  boroughs  in  Sardinia  not  included  in  the  com- 
munal organization.  Each  commune  has  a  council  of  from  15  to  80 
members,  according  to  its  population,  elected  for  a  period  of  six  years, 
one-half  retiring  every  three  years.  The  communal  franchise  is  appre- 
ciably broader  than  the  parliamentary.  It  extends  to  all  Italian  citizens 
twenty-one  years  of  age  who  can  read  and  write,  provided  they  are  on 
the  parliamentary  list,  or  pay  any  direct  annual  contribution  to  the 
commune,  or  comply  with  various  other  very  easy  conditions.  The 
council  holds  two  regular  sessions  a  year,  though  in  the  large  towns  it, 
in  point  of  fact,  meets  much  more  frequently.  Between  sittings  its 
work  is  carried  on  by  a  giunta,  which  serves  as  a  committee  to  execute 
the  resolutions  of  the  council  and  to  draft  its  budget  and  by-laws. 
The  powers  of  the  council  are  comprehensive.  It  is  obligated  to  main- 
tain streets,  roads,  and  markets;  to  provide  for  elementary  education; 
to  make  suitable  arrangements  for  the  relief  of  the  poor,  the  registration 
of  births  and  deaths,  and  of  electors;  to  establish  police  regulations 
and  prisons;  and,  under  varying  conditions,  to  attend  to  a  wide  variety 
of  other  matters.  The  range  of  its  optional  activities  is  almost  bound- 
less. The  council  may  establish  theatres,  found  museums,  subsidize 
public  amusements,  and,  indeed,  go  to  almost  any  length  in  the  regu- 
lation of  local  affairs  and  the  expenditure  of  local  funds.1 

As  its  chief  official,  every  commune  has  a  sindaco,  i.  e.,  a  syndic, 
or  mayor.  Prior  to  1896  the  syndic  was  chosen  by  the  communal 
council  from  its  own  members,  if  the  commune  had  more  than  10,000 
inhabitants,  or  was  the  capital  of  a  province  or  circondaro;  otherwise 
he  was  appointed  from  among  the  members  of  the  council  by  the  king. 
In  the  great  majority  of  communes  the  procedure  was  of  the  second 
type.  Since  1896  the  syndic  has  been  chosen  regularly  in  all  communes 
by  the  council,  for  a  term  of  three  years,  together  with  a  secretary, 
elected  in  the  first  instance  for  two,  but  afterwards  for  periods  of  not 
less  than  six,  years.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  syndic  is  now  elected 
universally  by  the  communal  council,  his  position  is  not  that  exclusively 
of  executive  head  of  the  local  community.  Like  the  prefect,  he  is  a  gov- 
ernment official,  who,  save  under  very  exceptional  circumstances,  may 
be  removed  only  with  the  prefect's  permission.  He  may  not  be  called 

1  For  an  arraignment  of  the  extravagance  of  the  local  governing  authorities  see 
King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  267. 


386  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

to  account  except  by  his  superiors,  or  sued  save  with  the  permission  of 
the  crown.1 

1For  a  brief  account  of  local  government  in  Italy  see  King  and  Okey,  Italy 
To-day,  Chap.  14.  More  extended  treatment  will  be  found  in  E.  del  Guerra,  L'Am- 
ministrazione  pubblica  in  Italia  (Florence,  1893)  and  G.  Greco,  II  nuova  diritto 
amministrativo  Italiano  (Naples,  1896). 


CHAPTER  XXI 
STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES 

I.   QUIRINAL  AND  VATICAN 

Italy  differs  from  other  nations  of  importance  in  containing  what  is 
essentially  a  state  within  a  state.  The  capital  of  the  kingdom  is  likewise 
the  capital  of  the  Catholic  world — the  administrative  seat  of  a  govern- 
ment which  is  not  only  absolutely  independent  of  the  government  of  the 
Italian  nation  but  is  in  no  small  degree  antagonistic  to  it.  It  need 
hardly  be  remarked  that  the  consequences  of  this  anomalous  situation 
affect  profoundly  the  practical  operations  of  government,  and  espe- 
cially the  crystallization  and  programmes  of  political  parties,  in  the 
peninsula. 

426.  Termination  of  the  Temporal  Power. — One  goal  toward  which 
the  founders  of  the  kingdom  directed  their  efforts  was  the  realization  ' 
of  the  ideal  of  Cavour,  "a  free  church  in  a  free  state."  A  thorough- 
going application  of  this  principle  proved  impracticable,  but  such 
progress  has  been  made  toward  it  as  to  constitute,  for  Italy,  a  veritable 
revolution.  On  the  2oth  of  September,  1870,  the  armed  forces  of  King 
Victor  Emmanuel  crossed  the  bounds  of  the  petty  papal  dominion  about 
Rome,  entered  the  city,  and  by  a  few  sharp  strokes  beat  down  all 
forcible  opposition  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  united  Italian  nation.  Pope 
Pius  IX.  refused  absolutely  to  acquiesce  in  the  loss  of  his  temporal 
dominion,  but  he  was  powerless  to  prevent  it.  His  sole  hope  of  indemnity 
lay  in  a  possible  intervention  of  the  Catholic  powers  in  his  behalf— a 
hope  which  by  Prussia's  defeat  of  France  and  the  downfall  of  the 
Emperor  Napoleon  III.  was  rendered  extremely  unsubstantial.  The 
possibility  of  intervention  was,  however,  sufficiently  considerable  to 
occasion  real  apprehension  on  the  part  of  Victor  Emmanuel  and  of  those 
attached  to  the  interests  of  the  young  nation.  In  part  to  avert  com- 
plications abroad,  as  well  as  with  an  honest  purpose  to  adjust  a  difficult 
situation,  the  Government  made  haste  to  devise  what  it  considered  a 
fair,  safe,  and  honorable  settlement  of  its  relations  with  the  papal 
authority.  The  result  was  the  fundamental  statute  known  as  the  Law 
of  the  Papal  Guarantees,  enacted  March  21,  1871,  after  a  heated  pariia- 

387 


388  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

mentary  contest  lasting  upwards  of  two  months,  and  promulgated  under 
date  of  May  13  following.1 

427.  The,  Law  of  Papal  Guarantees,  1871:  Papal  Prerogatives. — 

This  important  measure,  which  remains  to  this  day  unchanged,  falls 
into  two  principal  parts.  The  first  is  concerned  with  the  prerogatives 
of  the  Supreme  Pontiff  and  of  the  Holy  See;  the  second  regulates  the 
legal  relations  of  church  and  state  within  the  kingdom.  In  a  series  of 
thirteen  articles  there  is  enumerated  a  sum  total  of  papal  privileges  which 
constitutes  the  Vatican  an  essentially  sovereign  and  independent  power. 
First  of  all,  the  Pope  is  declared  sacred  and  inviolable,  and  any  offense 
against  his  person  is  made  punishable  with  the  same  penalty  as  a  similar 
•offense  against  the  person  of  the  king.  In  the  second  place,  the  Italian 
Government  "grants  to  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  within  the  kingdom, 
.sovereign  honors,  and  guarantees  to  him  the  pre-eminence  customarily 
accorded  to  him  by  Catholic  sovereigns."2  Diplomatic  agents  ac- 
credited to  him,  and  envoys  whom  he  may  send  to  foreign  states,  are  en- 
titled to  all  the  prerogatives  and  immunities  which  international  law  ac- 
cords to  diplomatic  agents  generally.  In  lieu  of  the  revenues  which  were 
cut  off  by  the  loss  of  the  temporal  dominion  there  is  settled  upon 
the  Pope  a  permanent  income  to  be  paid  from  the  treasury  of  the  state. 
For  the  uses  of  the  Holy  See — the  preservation  and  custody  of  the 
apostolic  palaces,  compensation  and  pensions  for  guards  and  attaches, 
the  keeping  of  the  Vatican  museums  and  library,  and  any  other  needful 
purposes — there  is  reserved  the  sum  of  3,225,000  lire  ($645,000)  annually, 
to  be  "  entered  in  the  great  book  of  the  public  debt  as  a  perpetual  and 
inalienable  income  of  the  Holy  See."  3  The  obligation  thus  assumed 
by  the  state  may  never  be  repudiated,  nor  may  the  amount  stipulated 
be  reduced.  Permanent  possession,  furthermore,  of  the  Vatican  and 
Lateran  palaces,  with  all  buildings,  museums,  libraries,  gardens,  and 
lands  appertaining  thereto  (including  the  church  of  St.  Peter's),  to- 
gether with  the  villa  at  Castel  Gandolfo,  is  expressly  guaranteed,  and 
it  is  stipulated,  not  only  that  these  properties  shall  be  exempt  from  all 
taxation  and  charges  and  from  seizure  for  public  purposes,  but  that, 
except  with  papal  permission,  no  public  official  or  agent  in  the  perform- 
ance of  his  public  duties  shall  so  much  as  enter  the  papal  palaces  or 
grounds,  or  any  place  where  there  may  be  in  session  at  any  time  a 
conclave  or  ecumenical  council.  During  a  vacancy  of  the  pontifical 
chair  no  judicial  or  political  functionary  may,  on  any  pretext,  invade 

1  Text  in  Coglio  e  Malchiodi,  Codice  Politico  Amministrativo.    An  English  ver- 
sion is  printed  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  16-21. 

2  Art.  3.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  16. 

3  Art.  4.  Ibid.,  17. 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  389 

the  personal  liberty  of  the  cardinals,  and  the  Government  engages 
specifically  to  see  to  it  that  conclaves  and  ecumenical  councils  shall  not 
be  molested  by  external  disorder. 

428.  Papal  Freedom  in  the  Exercise  of  Spiritual  Functions. — In 
the  exercises  of  spiritual  functions  the  independence  of  the  Holy  See 
is  fully  secured.    The  Pope  may  correspond  freely  with  the  bishops 
and  with  "the  whole  Catholic  world,"  without  interference  from  the 
Government.1     Papers,  documents,  books,  and  registers  deposited  in 
pontifical  offices  or  in  congregations  of  an  exclusively  spiritual  character 
are  exempt  from  all  legal  processes  of  visit,  search,  or  sequestration,  and 
ecclesiastics  may  not  be  called  to  account  by  the  civil  authorities  for 
taking  part  officially  in  the  promulgation  of  any  act  pertaining  to 
the  spiritual  ministry  of  the  Holy  See.   To  facilitate  the  administration 
of  papal  affairs  the  right  is  granted  of  maintaining  separate  postal  and 
telegraph  offices,  of  transmitting  sealed  packages  of  correspondence 
under  the  papal  stamp,  either  directly  or  through  the  Italian  post, 
and  of  sending  couriers  who,  within  the  kingdom,  are  placed  on  an  equal 
footing  with  emissaries  of  foreign  governments. 

429.  Legal  Relations  of  Church  and  State. — The  regulations  by  which 
the  relations  of  church  and  state  are  governed  more  specifically  begin 
with  the  abolition  of  all  restrictions  upon  the  right  of  members  of  the 
Catholic  clergy  to  assemble  for  ecclesiastical  purposes.   With  provisional 
exceptions,  the  exequatur,  the  placet,  and  all  other  forms  of  civil  authori- 
zation of  spiritual  measures  are  done  away.2  The  state  yields  its  ancient 
right  of  nominating  to  bishoprics,  and  the  bishops  themselves  are  no 
longer  required  to  take  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  king.    In  matters  of  spir- 
itual discipline  it  is  stipulated  that  there  shall  be  no  appeal  to  the  civil 
courts  from  the  decisions  of  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.    If,  however, 
any  ecclesiastical  decision  or  act  contravenes  a  law  of  the  state,  subverts 
public  order,  or  encroaches  upon  the  rights  of  individuals,  it  is,  ipso 
facto,  of  no  effect;  and  in  respect  to  these  things  the  state  is  constituted 
sole  judge.    The  Church,  in  short,  is  granted  a  very  large  measure  of 
freedom  and  of  autonomy;  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  not  so  far  privileged 
as  to  be  removed  beyond  the  pale  of  the  public  law.    If  its  measures 
constitute  offenses,  they  are  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  ordinary 
criminal  code.3 

1  Art.  12.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  19. 

2  On  the  Government's  use  of  the  exequatur  since  1871  see  King  and  Okey,  Italy 
To-day,  253. 

3  By  act  of  July  12,  1871,  articles  268-270  of  the  Italian  penal  code  were  so 
modified  as  to  render  ecclesiastics  liable  to  imprisonment  of  from  six  months  to 
five  years,  and  to  fines  of  from  one  thousand  to  three  thousand  lire,  for  spoken  or 
written  attacks  upon  the  state,  or  for  the  incitement  of  disorder. 


390  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

430.  Papal  Opposition  to  the  Existing  System. — The  arrangements 
thus  comprised  in  the  Law  of  Guarantees  have  never  received  the 
sanction  of  the  papacy.  They  rest  exclusively  upon  the  authority  of 
the  state.  Pope  Pius  IX.,  flatly  refusing  to  accept  them,  issued,  May 
15, 1871,  an  encyclical  to  the  bishops  of  the  Church  repudiating  the  Law 
and  calling  upon  Catholic  princes  everywhere  to  co-operate  in  the  res- 
toration of  the  temporal  power.  The  call  was  unheeded,  and  the  Pope 
fell  back  upon  the  obstructionist  policy  of  maintaining  absolutely  no  re- 
lations with  the  Italian  kingdom.  His  successor,  Leo  XIII.,  pre- 
served essentially  the  same  attitude,  and,  although  many  times  it  has 
been  intimated  that  the  present  Pope,  Pius  X.,  is  more  disposed  to  a 
conciliatory  policy,  it  still  is  true  that  the  only  recognition  which  is 
accorded  the  Quirinal  by  the  Vatican  is  of  a  purely  passive  and  involun- 
tary character.  The  Pope  persists  in  regarding  himself  as  "  the  prisoner 
of  the  Vatican."  He  will  not  so  much  as  set  foot  outside  the  petty 
domain  which  has  been  assigned  to  him,  because  his  doing  so  might  be 
construed  as  a  virtual  recognition  of  the  legality  of  the  authority  of  the 
kingdom  within  the  Eternal  City.  Not  a  penny  of  the  annuity  whose 
payment  to  the  Holy  See  was  stipulated  in  1871  has  been  touched. 
By  the  Italian  Government  the  annuity  itself  has  been  made  subject 
to  quinquennial  prescription,  so  that  in  the  event  of  a  recognition  of  the 
Law  at  any  time  by  the  papacy  not  more  than  a  five-year  quota,  with 
interest,  could  be  collected. 

As  to  the  measure  of  fidelity  with  which  the  Government  has  fulfilled 
the  obligations  which  it  assumed  under  the  Law,  there  is,  naturally, 
a  wide  divergence  of  opinion.  The  authors  of  what  is  probably  the 
most  authoritative  book  on  Italy  written  from  a  detached  and  impartial 
point  of  view  say  that  "  on  the  whole,  one  is  bound  to  conclude  that  the 
Government  has  stretched  the  Law  of  Guarantees  in  its  own  interest, 
but  that  the  brevity  and  incompleteness  of  the  Law  is  chiefly  responsible 
for  the  difficulty  in  construing  it."  1  Undoubtedly  it  may  be  affirmed 
that  the  spirit  of  the  Law  has  been  observed  with  consistency,  though 
the  exigencies  of  temporal  interest  have  compelled  not  infrequently  the 
non-observance  of  the  letter.  So  long  as  the  Vatican  persists  in  holding 
rigidly  aloof  from  co-operation  in  the  arrangement  the  Law  obviously 
cannot  be  executed  with  the  spontaneity  and  completeness  that  were 
intended  by  its  framers.  The  situation  is  unfortunate,  alike  for  state 
and  church,  and  subversive  of  the  best  interests  of  the  Italian  people.2 

1  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  255. 

2  For  a  brief  discussion  of  the  subject  of  church  and  state  in  Italy  see  King  and 
Okey,  Italy  To-day,  Chaps.  2  and  13.    A  useful  book  is  R.  de  Cesare,  Roma  e  lo 
stato  del  papa  dal  ritorno  di  Pio  IX.,  2  vols.  (Rome,  1907),  of  which  there  is  an 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  391 


II.  PARTIES  AND  MINISTRIES,  1861-1896 

431.  Party  Beginnings:  the  Conservative  Ascendancy,  1861-1876. — 

In  Italy,  as  in  France,  political  parties  are  numerous  and  their  con- 
stituencies and  programmes  are  subject  to  rapid  and  bewildering 
fluctuation.  In  the  earliest  days  of  the  kingdom  party  lines  were  not 
sharply  drawn.  In  the  parliament  elected  in  January,  1861,  the 
supporters  of  Cavour  numbered  407,  while  the  strength  of  the  opposi- 
tion was  but  36.  After  the  death  of  Cavour,  however,  June  6,  1861, 
the  cleavage  which  already  had  begun  to  mark  off  the  Radicals,  or 
Left,  from  the  Conservatives,  or  Right,  was  accentuated,  and  the 
Left  grew  rapidly  in  numbers  and  hi  influence.  During  the  period 
between  1861  and  1870  the  two  parties  differed  principally  upon  the 
question  of  the  completion  of  Italian  unity,  the  Conservatives  favor- 
ing a  policy  of  caution  and  delay,  the  Radicals  urging  that  the  issue 
be  forced  at  the  earliest  opportunity.  With  the  exception  of  brief 
intervals  in  1862  and  1867,  when  the  Radicals,  under  Rattazzi,  gained 
the  upper  hand,  the  government  during  the  period  indicated  was 
administered  by  the  Conservative  ministries  of  Ricasoli  (the  successor 
of  Cavour),  Minghetti,  La  Marmora,  Menabrea,  and  Lanza.  Each 
of  the  Rattazzi  ministries  had  as  one  of  its  principal  incidents  an 
invasion  of  the  papal  territory  by  Garibaldi,  and  each  fell  primarily 
because  of  the  fear  of  the  nation  that  its  continuance  hi  power  would 
mean  war  with  France.  The  unification  of  the  peninsula  was  left  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  Conservatives. 

After  1870  the  dominance  of  the  Conservatives  was  prolonged  to 
1876.  The  Lanza  government,  whose  most  distinguished  member 
was  the  finance  minister  Sella,  lasted  until  July  10,  1873,  and  the  sec- 
ond ministry  of  Minghetti,  given  distinction  by  the  able  foreign  minis- 
ter Visconti-Venosta,  filled  out  the  period  to  March  18,  1876.  Upon 
these  two  ministries  devolved  the  enormous  task  of  organizing  more 
fully  the  governmental  system  of  the  kingdom,  and  especially  of  bring- 
ing order  out  of  chaos  in  the  national  finances.  The  work  was  effec- 
tively performed,  but  when  it  had  been  completed  the  nation  was 
more  than  ready  to  drive  the  Conservatives  from  office.  The  Conserv- 
ative administration  had  been  honest  and  efficient,  but  it  had  been 
rigid  and  at  times  harsh.  It  had  set  itself  squarely  against  the  democ- 

abridged  translation  by  H.  Zimmera,  The  Last  Days  of  Papal  Rome,  1850-1870 
(Boston,  1909).  Mention  may  be  made  of  M.  Pernot,  La  politique  de  Pie  X  (Paris, 
1910);  A.  Brunialto,  Lo  stato  e  la  chiesa  in  Italia  (Turin,  1892);  G.  Barzellotti, 
L'ltalia  e  il  papato,  in  Nuova  Antologia,  March  i,  1904;  and  F.  Nielsen  The 
History  of  the  Papacy  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  (London,  1906). 


392  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

racy  of  Garibaldi,  Crispi,  and  Depretis;  it  had  sought  to  retain  the  im- 
portant offices  of  state  in  the  hands  of  its  own  immediate  adherents; 
and  in  the  execution  of  its  fiscal  measures  it  had  been  exacting,  and 
even  ruthless.  March  18,  1876,  the  Minghetti  government  found  it- 
self lacking  a  majority  in  the  Chamber,  whereupon  it  retired  and  was 
replaced  by  a  Radical  ministry  under  the  premiership  of  Depretis,  suc- 
cessor of  Rattazzi  in  the  leadership  of  the  Left.  A  national  election 
which  followed,  in  November,  yielded  the  new  Government  the  over- 
whelming parliamentary  majority  of  421  to  87. 

432.  The  Rule  of  the  Radicals,  1876-1896. — Prior  to  their  accession 
to  power  the  Radical  leaders  had  criticized  so  sharply  the  fiscal  and 
administrative  policies  of  their  opponents  that  they  were  expected  by 
many  persons  to  overturn  completely  the  existing  order  of  the  state. 
As  all  but  invariably  happens  under  such  circumstances,  however, 
when  the  "outs"  became  the  "ins"  their  point  of  view,  and  conse- 
quently their  purposes,  underwent  a  remarkable  transformation.    In 
almost  every  essential  the  policies,  and  even  the  methods,  of  the 
Conservatives  were  perpetuated,  and  the  importance  of  the  political 
overturn  of  1876  arises,  not  from  any  shift  which  took  place  from  one 
style  of  government  to  another,  but  from  its  effects  upon  the  com- 
position and  alignment  of  the  parties  themselves.    During  its  fifteen- 
year  ascendancy  the  Right  had  exhibited  again  and  again  a  glaring 
lack  of  coherence;  yet  its  unity  was  in  reality  considerably  more  sub- 
stantial than  was  that  of  the  Left.    So  long  as  the  Radicals  occupied 
the  position  of  opponents  of  the  Government  they  were  able,  indeed, 
to  present  a  seemingly  solid  front.    But  when  it  fell  to  them  to  or- 
ganize ministries,  to  frame  and  enact  measures,  and  to  conduct  the 
administration,  the  fact  appeared  instantly  that  they  had  neither  a 
constructive  programme  nor  a  unified  leadership.    The  upshot  was 
that  upon  its  advent  to  power  the  Left  promptly  fell  apart  into  the 
several  groups  of  which  it  was  composed,  and  never  thereafter  was 
there  substantial  co-operation  among  these  groups,  save  at  rare  inter- 
vals when  co-operation  was  necessary  to  prevent  the  return  to  office  of 
the  Conservatives. 

433.  The  Depretis  Ministries,  1876-1887.— That  portion  of  the 
party  which  first  acquired  ascendancy  was  the  more  moderate,  under 
the  leadership  of  Depretis.     Its  programme  may  be  said  to  have 
embraced  the  extension  of  the  franchise,  the  enforcement  of  the  rights 
of  the  state  in  relation  to  the  Church,  the  incompatibility  of  a  parlia- 
mentary mandate  with  the  holding  of  public  office,  the  maintenance 
of  the  military  and  naval  policy  instituted  by  the  Conservatives,  and, 
eventually,  fiscal  reform,  though  the  amelioration  of  taxation  was 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  393 

given  no  such  prominence  as  the  nation  had  been  led  to  expect.  Save 
for  the  brief  intervals  occupied  by  the  two  Cairoli  ministries  of  1878 
and  1879-1881,  Depretis  continued  in  the  office  of  premier  from  1876 
until  his  death,  in  the  summer  of  1887.  Again  and  again  during  this 
period  the  personnel  of  the  ministry  was  changed.  Ministers  who 
made  themselves  unpopular  were  replaced  by  new  ones,1  and  so  com- 
plete became  the  lack  of  dividing  principles  between  the  parties  that 
in  1883  there  was  established  a  Depretis  cabinet  which  represented  a 
coalition  of  the  moderate  Left  and  the  Right.2  The  coalition,  how- 
ever, proved  ill-advised,  and  when,  July  27,  1887,  Depretis  died  he 
left  behind  him  a  government  which  represented  rather  a  fusion  of  the 
moderate  and  radical  wings  of  the  Left.  By  reason  of  the  disintegrated 
condition  of  parties  Depretis  had  been  able  to  override  habitually 
the  fundamental  principles  of  parliamentarism  and  to  maintain 
through  many  years  a  government  which  lived  from  hand  to  mouth 
on  petty  maneuvers.  The  franchise,  it  is  true,  had  been  broadened 
by  the  law  of  1882,  and  some  of  the  more  odious  taxes,  e.  g.,  the  much 
complained  of  grist  tax,  had  been  abolished.  But  electoral  corruption 
had  been  condoned,  if  not  encouraged;  the  civil  service  had  been 
degraded  to  a  mere  machine  of  the  ministerial  majority;  and  the  nation 
had  been  led  to  embark  upon  highly  questionable  policies  of  colo- 
nial expansion,  alliance  with  Germany  and  Austria,  and  protective 
tariffs. 

434.  The  First  Crispi,  First  Rudini,  and  First  Giolitti  Ministries, 
1887-1893. — The  successor  of  Depretis  was  Crispi,  in  reality  the  only 
man  of  first-rate  statesmanship  in  the  ranks  of  the  Left.  To  him  it 
fell  to  tide  the  nation  safely  over  the  crises  attendant  upon  the  death 
(January  9,  1878)  of  King  Victor  Emmanuel  II.  and  that  (February  7 
following)  of  Pope  Pius  IX.  The  personality  of  Crispi  was  very  much 
more  forceful  than  was  that  of  Depretis  and  the  grasp  which  he  secured 
upon  the  political  situation  rendered  his  position  little  short  of  that 
of  a  dictator.  The  elections  of  1876  had  reduced  to  impotence  the  old 
Right  as  a  party  of  opposition,  and  although  prior  to  Crispi's  ministry 
there  had  been  some  recovery,  the  Left  continued  in  all  but  uncon- 
tested  power.  In  the  elections  of  November,  1890,  the  Government 
was  accorded  an  overwhelming  majority.  None  the  less,  largely  by 
reason  of  his  uncontrollable  temper,  Crispi  allowed  himself,  at  the  end 

1  This  partial  renewal  of  a  ministry,  known  in  Italy  as  a  rimpasto,  was,  and  still 
is,  rendered  easy  by  the  average  ministry's  lack  of  political  solidarity. 

2  This  coalition   policy — the  so-called   transformismo — did  not  originate  with 
Depretis.    As  early  as  1873  a  portion  of  the  Right  under  Minghetti,  by  joining  the 
Left,  had  overturned  the  Lanza-Sella  cabinet;  and  in  1876  Minghetti  himself  had 
fallen  a  victim  to  a  similar  defection  of  Conservative  deputies. 


394  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  January,  1891,  to  be  forced  by  the  Conservatives  into  a  position 
such  that  the  only  course  open  to  him  was  to  resign. 

There  followed  a  transitional  period  during  which  the  chaos  of  party 
groups  was  made  more  than  ever  apparent.  The  Rudini  ministry, 
composed  of  representatives  of  both  the  Right  and  the  Left,  survived 
little  more  than  a  year.  May  5, 1892,  the  formation  of  a  ministry  was 
intrusted  by  King  Humbert  to  Giolitti,  a  Piedmontese  deputy  and 
at  one  tune  minister  of  finance  in  the  Crispi  cabinet.  The  product 
was  a  ministry  supported  by  the  groups  of  the  Centre  and  the  Left, 
but  opposed  by  those  of  the  Right  and  of  the  Extreme  Left.  Parlia- 
ment was  dissolved  and  during  the  ensuing  November  were  held 
national  elections  in  which,  by  exercise  of  the  grossest  sort  of  official 
pressure,  the  Government  was  able  to  win  a  substantial  victory.  The 
period  covered  by  Giolitti's  ministry — marked  by  a  cringing  foreign 
policy,  an  almost  utter  breakdown  of  the  national  finances,  and  the 
scandals  of  1893  in  connection  with  the  management  of  state  banks, 
especially  the  Banca  Romana — may  well  be  regarded  as  the  most 
unfortunate  in  Italian  history  since  the  completion  of  national  unity. 
The  revelations  made,  November  23,  1893,  by  a  committee  appointed 
by  Parliament  to  investigate  the  bank  scandals  were  of  such  a  char- 
acter that  the  Giolitti  ministry  retired  from  office,  November  24, 
without  so  much  as  challenging  a  vote  of  confidence.  After  prolonged 
delay  a  new  ministry  was  made  up,  December  10,  by  Crispi,  whose 
return  to  power  was  dictated  by  the  conviction  of  the  nation  that 
no  one  else  was  qualified  to  deal  with  a  situation  so  desperate. 

435.  The  Second  Crispi  Ministry,  1893-1896.— The  second  Crispi 
ministry  extended  from  December,  1893, to  March,  1896.  Politically, 
the  period  was  one  of  extreme  unsettlement.  Supported  by  the 
Centre  and  the  Left,  substantially  as  Giolitti  had  been,  the  Govern- 
ment suppressed  disorder,  effected  economies,  and  entered  upon  an 
ambitious  attempt  at  colonial  aggrandizement  in  East  Africa.  But 
it  was  opposed  by  the  Extreme  Left,  a  large  portion  of  the  Right,  and 
the  adherents  of  Giolitti,  so  that  its  position  was  always  precarious. 
In  December,  1894,  Giolitti  produced  papers  purporting  to  show  that 
Crispi  himself  had  been  implicated  in  the  bank  irregularities.  The 
effort  to  bring  about  the  premier's  fall  failed,  although  there  ensued  a 
veritable  war  between  the  cabinet  and  the  chambers,  in  the  course 
of  which  even  the  appearance  of  parliamentary  government  was 
abandoned.  In  the  elections  of  May,  1895,  the  Government  was 
victorious,  and  it  was  only  by  reason  of  public  indignation  arising  from 
the  failure  of  the  Eritrean  enterprise  that,  finally,  March  5,  1896, 
Crispi  and  his  colleagues  surrendered  office. 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  395 


III.  THE  ERA  OF  COMPOSITE  MINISTRIES,  1896-1912 

During  the  period  which  was  terminated  by  the  retirement  of 
Crispi  the  successive  ministries,  while  occasionally  including  repre- 
sentatives of  more  than  a  single  political  group,  exhibited  normally  a 
considerable  degree  of  solidarity.  After  1896  there  set  in,  however, 
an  epoch  during  which  the  growing  multiplicity  of  parties  bore  fruit 
in  cabinets  of  amazingly  composite  character.  In  the  place  of  the 
fairly  substantial  Conservative  and  Radical  parties  of  the  seventies 
stood  now  upwards  of  half  a  score  of  contending  factions,  some  dur- 
able, some  but  transitory.  No  government  could  survive  a  month 
save  by  the  support  of  an  affiliation  of  a  number  of  these  groups. 
But  such  affiliations  were,  in  the  nature  of  things,  artificial  and  pro- 
visional, and  ministerial  stability  became  what  it  remains  to-day,  a 
thing  universally  desired  but  rarely  enjoyed. 

436.  The  Second  Rudini  and  the  Pelloux  Ministries,  1896-1900. — 
To  General  Ricotti-Magnani  was  committed,  at  Crispi's  fall  in  1896, 
the  task  of  forming  a  new  ministry.  After  some  delay  the  premiership 
was  bestowed  upon  Rudini,  now  leader  of  the  Right.  The  new  Govern- 
ment, constructed  to  attract  the  support  of  both  the  Right  and  the 
Extreme  Left,  took  as  its  principal  object  the  elimination  of  Crispi 
from  the  arena  of  politics.  In  time  its  foreign  policy  was  strengthened 
appreciably  by  the  return  of  Visconti-Venosta,  after  twenty  years, 
to  the  foreign  office,  but  home  affairs  were  administered  in  a  grossly 
inefficient  manner.  Bound  by  a  secret  understanding  with  Cavalotti, 
the  leader  of  the  Extreme  Left,  Rudini  was  obliged  to  submit  habit- 
ually to  radical  dictation,  and  the  elections  of  1899,  conducted  specif- 
ically to  crush  the  adherents  of  Crispi,  threw  open  yet  wider  the  door 
of  opportunity  for  the  Socialists,  the  Republicans,  and  the  radical 
elements  generally.  The  Rudini  ministry  survived  until  June  18,  1898, 
when  it  was  overthrown  in  consequence  of  riots  occasioned  in  southern 
Italy  by  a  rise  in  the  price  of  bread. 

June  29,  1898,  a  ministry  was  made  up  by  General  Pelloux  which 
was  essentially  colorless  politically  and  whose  immediate  programme 
consisted  solely  in  the  passage  of  a  public  safety  measure  originated 
during  the  preceding  ministry.  When,  in  June,  1900,  the  Government 
dissolved  parliament  and  appealed  to  the  country  the  result  was  an- 
other appreciable  increase  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  radicals.  In  the 
new  chamber  the  extremists — Radicals,  Republicans,  and  Socialists — 
numbered  nearly  100,  or  double  their  former  strength.  The  Pelloux 
government  forthwith  retired,  and  a  Liberal  ministry  was  constituted 


396  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

(June  24,  1900)  under  Saracco,  president  of  the  Senate.  Five  weeks 
later,  upon  the  assassination  of  King  Humbert,  occurred  the  accession 
of  the  present  sovereign,  Victor  Emmanuel  III. 

437.  The  Saracco  and  Zanardelli  Ministries,  1900-1903.— The  Sa- 
racco ministry,  formed  as  a  cabinet  of  pacification,  was  overthrown  Feb- 
ruary 7,  1901,  in  consequence  of  its  hesitating  attitude  towards  a  dock 
strike  at  Genoa.    It  was  succeeded  by  a  ministry  containing  Giolitti  (in 
the  portfolio  of  the  interior)  and  presided  over  by  Zanardelli,  long  a  leader 
of  the  extremer  wing  of  the  Radicals.     The  members  of  the  new  Gov- 
ernment were  drawn  from  several  groups.    Three  were  of  Zanardelli's 
following,  three  were  adherents  of  Giolitti,  three  belonged  to  the  Right, 
one  was  a  Crispian,  and  two  were  Independents.    Such  was  their  forced 
reliance,  however,  upon  the  support  of  the  Extreme  Left  that  the  forma- 
tion of  this  cabinet  served  as  an  impetus  to  a  notable  advance  on  the 
part  of  the  extremer  groups,  especially  the  Socialists. 

438.  Giolitti,  Fortis,  and  Sonnino,  1903-1909. — In  October,  1903, 
Premier  Zanardelli  retired,  by  reason  of  ill-health,  and  the  cabinet  was 
reconstituted  under  Giolitti.    Aside  from  the  premier,  its  most  distin- 
guished members  were  Tittoni,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  Luzzatti, 
minister  of  finance.    The  position  of  the  new  Government  was  insecure, 
and  although  the  elections  of  November,  1904,  resulted  in  the  return  of  a 
substantial  ministerial  majority,  the  cabinet,  realizing  that  it  really 
lacked  the  support  of  the  country,  resigned  in  March,  1905.   A  new  and 
colorless  ministry,  that  of  Fortis,  lasted  less  than  a  year,  i.  e.,  until 
February  2,  1906.    The  coalition  cabinet  of  Sonnino  proved  even  less 
long-lived.    The  well-known  statesmanship  of  Sonnino,  together  with 
the  fact  that  men  of  ability,  such  as  Luzzatti  and  Guicciardini,  were 
placed  in  charge  of  various  portfolios,  afforded  ground  for  the  hope  that 
there  might  ensue  an  increased  measure  of  parliamentary  stability. 
But  the  hope  was  vain  and,  May  17,  1906,  the  ministry  abandoned 
office.     Curiously  enough,  the  much  desired  stability  was  realized 
under  a  new  Giolitti  government,  composed,  as  all  Italian  governments 
in  these  days  must  be,  of  representatives  of  a  number  of  political 
groups.    In  part  by  reason  of  the  shrewdness  of  the  premier  and  his 
colleagues,  in  part  by  reason  of  sheer  circumstance,  the  Giolitti  cabinet 
maintained  steadily  its  position  until  December  2,  1909,  although,  as 
need  hardly  be  observed,  during  these  three  and  a  half  years  there  were 
numerous  changes  in  the  tenure  of  individual  portfolios. 

439.  Second  Sonnino  and  Luzzatti  Ministries,  1909-1911. — Upon 
the  retirement  of  Giolitti  there  was  constituted  a  second  Sonnino  minis- 
try, composed  of  elements  drawn  from  all  of  the  moderate  groups  from 
the  Liberal  Right  to  the  Democratic  Left.    The  programme  which  it  an- 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  397 

nounced  included  electoral  reform,  the  improvement  of  primary  educa- 
tion, measures  for  the  encouragement  of  agriculture,  reorganization  of 
local  taxation,  reduction  of  the  period  oi  military  service  to  two  years, 
and  a  multiplicity  of  other  ambitious  projects.  Scarcely  more  fortunate, 
however,  was  the  second  Sonnino  government  than  had  been  the  first, 
and,  in  the  midst  of  the  turmoil  attending  the  debates  upon  a  Shipping 
Conventions  bill,  the  premier  and  his  colleagues  felt  themselves  forced 
to  retire,  March  21,  1910. 

Giolitti  refused  to  attempt  the  formation  of  another  ministry,  and  the 
task  devolved  upon  the  former  minister  of  finance,  Luzzatti.  In  the 
new  cabinet  the  premier  and  one  other  member  represented  the  Liberal 
element  of  the  Right;  one  member  represented  the  Centre;  three  were 
adherents  of  Giolitti;  two  were  Radicals;  one  was  a  Socialist;  and  two 
professed  independence  of  all  groups.  Whatever  of  advantage  might  be 
supposed  to  accrue  from  a  government  which  was  broadly  representa- 
tive could  legitimately  be  expected  from  this  combination;  although 
the  composite  character  of  the  ministry,  it  was  well  enough  understood, 
must  of  necessity  operate  to  the  detriment  of  the  Government's  unity 
and  influence.  The  programme  which  the  Luzzatti  ministry  announced 
was  no  less  ambitious  than  that  put  forward  by  its  predecessor.  In- 
cluded in  it  were  the  establishment  of  proportional  representation,  the 
extension  of  the  suffrage,  measures  to  remedy  unemployment  and  other 
industrial  ills,  compulsory  insurance  for  agricultural  laborers,  re- 
sistance to  clerical  intrigue  and  the  prevention  of  anti-clerical  provoca- 
tions, and  the  usual  pledge  to  maintain  the  Triple  Alliance. 

440.  Giolitti  and  the  Left,  1911-  .—The  life  of  the  Luzzatti 
government  covered  barely  a  twelvemonth.  March  29,  1911,  Giolitti 
returned  to  the  premiership,  signalizing  his  restoration  to  power  by 
avowing  in  the  Chamber  a  programme  of  policies  which,  for  the  time 
at  least,  elicited  the  support  of  all  of  the  more  important  party  groups. 
The  composition  of  the  new  government  differed  but  slightly  from  that 
of  the  former  one,  but  the  fact  was  undisguised  that  Giolitti  relied  for 
support  principally  upon  the  more  radical  elements  of  the  nation,  and 
that,  furthermore,  he  did  so  with  the  full  assent  of  the  king.  A  strik- 
ing evidence  of  this  was  the  invitation  which  was  extended  the  socialist 
leader  Bissolati  to  assume  a  post  in  the  ministry.  Certain  obstacles 
arose  which  prevented  acceptance  of  the  offered  position,  but  when  the 
Government's  programme  was  being  given  shape  Bissolati  was  called 
repeatedly  into  counsel,  and  it  is  understood  that  the  ministry's  pro- 
nouncement in  behalf  of  universal  suffrage  and  the  reduction  of  military 
and  naval  expenditures  was  inspired  immediately  by  socialist  influence. 
Socialism  in  Italy,  it  may  be  observed,  is  not  entirely  anti-monarchical, 


398  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

as  it  is  in  France  and  Spain;  on  the  contrary,  it  tends  constantly  to 
subordinate  political  to  social  questions  and  ends.  Bissolati  is  himself 
an  exponent  of  the  evolutionary  type  of  socialism,  as  is  Briand  in  France. 
The  first  vote  of  confidence  accorded  the  Giolitti  government  was 
participated  in  by  the  Giolitti  Liberals,  the  Democratic  Left,  the  Radi- 
cals, and  a  section  of  the  Socialists — by,  in  short,  a  general  coalition  of 
the  Left.  The  shift  of  political  gravity  toward  the  Left,  of  which  the 
vote  was  symptomatic,  is  the  most  fundamental  aspect  of  the  political 
situation  in  Italy  to-day,  even  as  it  is  in  that  of  France.  During  more 
than  a  generation  the  grouping  of  parties  and  factions  has  been  such  as 
to  preclude  the  formation  of  a  compact  and  disciplined  majority  able 
and  willing  to  grapple  with  the  great  social  questions  which  successive 
ministries  have  inscribed  in  their  programmes.  But  it  seems  not  im- 
possible that  a  working  entente  among  the  groups  of  the  Left  may  in 
time  produce  the  legislative  stability  requisite  for  systematic  and 
fruitful  legislation. 

IV.  PHASES  OF  PARTY  POLITICS 

441.  lack  of  a  Conservative  Party :  Effects. — "  From  the  beginning," 
says  an  Italian  writer,  "  the  constitution  of  our  parties  has  been  deter- 
mined, not  at  all  by  great  historical  or  political  considerations,  but  by 
considerations  of  a  purely  personal  nature,  and  this  aspect  has  been 
accentuated  more  and  more  as  we  have  progressed  in  constitutional 
development.  The  natural  conditions  surrounding  the  birth  and  growth 
of  the  new  nation  did  not  permit  the  formation  of  a  true  conservative 
party  which  could  stand  in  opposition  to  a  liberal  party.  The  liberal 
party,  therefore,  occupying  the  entire  field,  divided  empirically  into 
groups,  denominated  not  less  empirically  Right  and  Left,  in  accordance 
with  simple  distinctions  of  degrees  and  forms,  and  perchance  also  of 
personal  disposition."  1 

The  preponderating  facts,  in  short,  relative  to  political  parties  in  Italy 
are  two:  (i)  the  absence  of  any  genuine  conservative  party  such  as  in 
virtually  every  other  European  state  plays  a  role  of  greater  or  lesser 
importance,  and  (2)  the  splitting  of  the  liberal  forces,  which  elsewhere 
are  bound  to  co-operate  against  the  conservatives,  into  a  number  of 
factional  groups,  dominated  largely  by  factional  leaders,  and  unwilling 
[to  unite  save  in  occasional  coalitions  for  momentary  advantage.  The 
lack  of  a  genuine  conservative  party  is  to  be  explained  largely  by  the 
anomalous  situation  which  has  existed  since  1870  in  respect  to  church 
and  state.  Until  late  years  that  important  element,  the  clericals, 
which  normally  would  have  constituted,  as  does  its  counterpart  in 
1  Cordon,  Del  governo  nella  monarchia  costituzionale,  125. 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  399 

France,  the  backbone  of  a  conservative  party  has  persisted  in  the  purely 
passive  policy  of  abstention  from  national  politics.  In  the  evolution  of 
party  groupings  it  has  had  no  part,  and  in  Parliament  it  has  been  totally 
unrepresented.  Until  recently  all  active  party  groups  were  essen- 
tially "liberal,"  and  rarely  did  any  one  of  them  put  forward  a  programme 
which  served  to  impart  to  it  any  vital  distinction  from  its  rivals.  Each 
was  little  more  than  a  faction,  united  by  personal  ties,  fluctuating  hi 
membership  and  in  leadership,  fighting  with  such  means  as  for  the  mo- 
ment appeared  dependable  for  the  perquisites  of  office.  Of  broadly 
national  political  issues  there  were  none,  just  as  indeed  there  were  no 
truly  national  parties. 

442.  The  Groups  of  the  Extreme  Left. — More  recently  there  has 
De^un  to  be  a  certain  development  in  the  direction  of  national  parties 
and  of  stable  party  programmes.     This  is  coming  about  primarily 
through  the  growth  of  the  Extreme  Left,  and  especially  of  the  Socialists. 
Although  the  effects  are  as  yet  scarcely  perceptible,  so  that  the  poli- 
tics of  the  country  exhibit  still  all  of  the  changeableness,  ineffective- 
ness, and  chaos  characteristic  of  the  group  system,  the  development  of 
the  partiti  populari  which  compose  collectively  the  Extreme  Left,  i.  e., 
the  Republicans,  the  Radicals,  and  the  Socialists,  is  an  interesting 
political  phenomenon.1     The  Republicans  are  not  numerous  or  well 
organized.    Quite  impotent  between  1870  and  1890,  they  gained  no  little 
ground  during  the  struggle  against  Crispi;  but  the  rise  of  socialism  has 
weakened  them,  and  the  party  may  now  be  said  to  be  distinctly  in  de- 
cline.   To  employ  the  expressive  phrase  of  the  Italians,  the  Republicans 
are  but  quattro  nod  in  un  sacco,  four  nuts  rattling  in  a  bag.    The  Radi- 
cals are  stronger,  and  their  outlook  is  much  more  promising.    They  are 
monarchists  who  are  dissatisfied  with  the  misgovernment  of  the  older 
parties,  but  who  distrust  socialism.     They  draw  especially  from  the 
artisans  and  lower  middle  class,  and  are  strongest  in  Lombardy,  Venetia, 
and  Tuscany. 

443.  The  Rise  of  Socialism. — In  not  a  few  respects  the  master  fact 
of  Italian  politics  to-day  is  the  remarkable  growth  of  the  Socialist 
party.    The  origins  of  the  socialist  movement  in  Italy  may  be  traced 
to  the  Congress  of  Rimini  in  1872,  but  during  a  considerable  period 
Italian  socialism  was  scarcely  distinguishable  from  Bakuninian  anarch- 
ism, and  it  was  not  before  1890  that  the  line  between  the  two  was 
drawn  with  precision.     In  1891  was  founded  the  collectivist  journal 
Critica  Sociale,  and  in  the  same  year  was  held  the  first  Italian  congress 
which  was  distinctively  socialist.    In  1892  came  the  final  bieak  with  the 

1  For  an  exposition  of  party  conditions  during  the  past  decade  see  A.  Labrioli, 
Storia  di  died  anni,  1899*1909  (Milan,  1910). 


400  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

anarchists,  and  since  this  date  socialism  in  Italy  has  differed  in  no 
essential  particulars  from  its  counterpart  in  other  countries.  Between 
1891  and  1893  the  new  party  was  allied  with  the  Right,  but  Crispi's  re- 
lentless policy  of  repression  in  1894  had  the  effect  of  driving  gradually 
the  radical  groups,  Republicans,  Radicals,  and  Socialists,  into  co- 
operation, and  it  is  to  this  period  that  the  origins  of  the  present  coalition 
of  the  groups  of  the  Extreme  Left  are  to  be  traced.  During  the  years 
1895-1900  the  Socialists  assumed  definitely  the  position  of  the  advanced 
wing  of  a  great  parliamentary  party,  with  a  very  definite  programme 
of  political  and  social  reform.  This  "minimum  programme,"  as  it  was 
gradually  given  shape,  came  to  comprise  as  its  most  essential  features 
the  establishment  of  universal  suffrage  for  adults  of  both  sexes,  the 
payment  of  deputies  and  members  of  local  councils,  the  enactment  of 
a  more  humane  penal  code,  the  replacing  of  the  standing  army  by  a 
national  militia,  improved  factory  legislation,  compulsory  insurance 
against  sickness,  the  reform  of  laws  regulating  the  relations  of  land- 
lords and  tenants,  the  nationalization  of  railways  and  mines,  the  ex- 
tension of  compulsory  education,  the  abolition  of  duties  on  food,  and  the 
enactment  of  a  progressive  income  tax  and  succession  duty.  The 
widespread  dissatisfaction  of  Italians  with  the  older  parties,  the  practical 
character  of  the  socialist  programme,  and  the  comparatively  able 
leadership  of  the  socialist  forces  have  combined  to  give  socialism  an 
enormous  growth  within  the  past  fifteen  years.  In  1^95  the  party  polled 
60,000  votes  and  returned  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  12  members. 
In  1897  it  polled  108,000  votes  and  returned  16  members.  Thereafter 
the  quota  of  seats  carried  at  successive  elections  rose  as  follows:  1900, 
33'  IOQ4,  26;  1906, 42;  and  1909, 43. 

444.  The  Catholics  and  Politics:  the  Non  Expedit. — Aside  from  the 
growth  of  socialism,  the  most  important  development  in  recent  Italian 
politick  has  been  the  changed  attitude  of  the  Holy  See  with  respect  to 
the  participation  of  Catholics  in  political  affairs.  The  term  "Catholic" 
in  Italy  has  a  variety  of  significations.  From  one  point  of  view  it  denotes 
the  great  mass  of  the  people — 97.1  per  cent  in  1910 — who  are  not  Prot- 
estants, Greeks,  Jews,  or  adherents  of  any  faith  other  than  the  Roman. 
In  another  sense  it  denotes  that  very  much  smaller  portion  of  the  people 
who  regularly  and  faithfully  observe  Catholic  precepts  of  worship. 
Finally,  it  denotes  also  the  still  smaller  body  of  men  who  yield  the  Pope 
implicit  obedience  in  all  matters,  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  and  who, 
with  papal  sanction,  are  beginning  to  constitute  an  organized  force  in 
politics.  After  it  had  become  manifest  that  the  Holy  See  might  not 
hope  for  assistance  from  the  Catholic  powers  in  the  recovery  of  its 
temporal  possessions  and  of  its  accustomed  independence,  there  was 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  401 

worked  out  gradually  at  the  Vatican  a  policy  under  which  pressure  was 

to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Italian  state  from  within.    This  policy   /-      / 

comprised  abstention  from  participation  in  national  political  life  on  the          *H£ 

part  of  as  many  citizens  as  could  be  induced  to  admit  the  right  of  the 

papal  government  to  control  their  civic  conduct.    In  protest  against 

the  alleged  usurpations  of  secular  power  Pope  Pius  IX.  promulgated,  -  ^ 

in  1883,  the  memorable  decree  Non  Expedit,  by  which  it  was  declared 

"  inexpedient"  that  Catholics  should  vote  at  parliamentary  elections.    IjL^/ 

Leo  XIII.  maintained  a  similar  attitude;  and  in  1895  he  went  a  step 

further  by  expressly  forbidding  what  hitherto  had  been  pronounced 

simply  inexpedient. 

At  no  time,  before  or  after  Pope  Leo's  decree  of  prohibition,  was  the 
policy  of  abstention  widely  enforced,  and  very  many  Catholics,  both  in 
and  out  of  Italy,  warmly  opposed  it.  The  stricture  was  applied  only 
to  parliamentary,  not  to  municipal,  elections;  yet  in  the  two  the  per- 
centages of  the  enfranchised  citizens  who  appeared  at  the  polls  continued 
to  be  not  very  unequal,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
meagerness  of  these  percentages  has  been  attributable  at  all  times  to  the 
habitual  indifference  of  the  Italian  electorate  rather  than  to  the  restrain- 
ing effects  of  the  papal  veto.  None  the  less,  in  the  strongly  Catholic 
province  of  Bergamo  and  in  some  other  quarters,  the  papal  regulations, 
by  common  admission,  have  cut  deeply  into  what  otherwise  would  have 
been  the  normal  parliamentary  vote. 

445.  Relaxation  of  the  Papal  Ban. — In  the  elections  of  1904  many 
Catholics  who  hitherto  had  abstained  from  voting  joined  with  the 
Government's  supporters  at  the  polls  in  an  effort  to  check  the  growing 
influence  of  the  more  radical  political  groups,  justifying  their  conduct 
by  the  conviction  that  the  combatting  of  socialism  is  a  fundamental 
Catholic  obligation.  Pope  Leo  XIII.  was  ready  to  admit  the  force  of 
the  argument,  and  in  June  of  the  following  year  there  was  issued  an 
encyclical  which  made  it  the  duty  of  Catholics  everywhere,  Italy  in- 
cluded, to  share  in  the  maintenance  of  social  order,  and  permitted, 
and  even  enjoined,  that  they  take  part  in  political  contests  in  defense 
of  social  order  whenever  and  wherever  it  was  obviously  menaced. 
At  the  same  time,  such  participation  must  be,  not  indiscriminate, 
but  disciplined.  It  must  be  carried  on  under  the  direction  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical hierarchy,  and  with  the  express  approval  of  the  Vatican. 
Theoretically,  and  as  a  general  rule,  the  Non  Expedit  remains.  But 
where  the  rigid  application  of  the  law  would  open  the  way  for  the 
triumph  of  the  enemies  of  society  and  of  religion  (as,  from  the  papal 
point  of  view,  socialists  inevitably  are)  the  rule,  upon  request  of  the 
bishop  and  sanction  by  the  Holy  See,  is  to  be  waived.  A  corollary 


402  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  this  new  policy  is  that,  under  certain  circumstances,  Catholics  may 
not  merely  vote  but  may  stand  for  parliamentary  seats.  By  the  en- 
cyclical it  is  prescribed  that  such  candidacies  shall  be  permitted  only 
where  absolutely  necessary  to  prevent  the  election  of  an  avowed  ad- 
versary of  the  Church,  only  where  there  is  a  real  chance  of  success, 
and  only  with  the  approbation  of  the  proper  hierarchical  authorities; 
and  even  then  the  candidate  shall  seek  office  not  as  a  Catholic,  but 
although  a  Catholic.1 

The  partial  lifting  of  the  Non  Expedit  has  had  two  obvious  effects. 
In  the  first  place,  it  has  stimulated  considerably  the  political  activities 
of  the  Catholics.  In  the  elections  of  1906  and  1909  the  number  of 
Catholic  voters  and  of  Catholic  candidates  was  larger  than  ever  be- 
fore, and  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  the  group  of  clerical  members 
gives  promise  of  attaining  some  real  importance.  A  second  result 
has  been,  on  the  other  hand,  a  quickening  of  the  anti-clerical  spirit, 
with  a  perceptible  strengthening  of  the  radical-republican-socialist 
bloc.  By  providing  the  Left  with  a  solidifying  issue  it  may  yet  prove 
that  the  papacy  has  rendered  unwittingly  a  service  to  the  very  ele- 
ments against  whom  it  has  authorized  its  adherents  to  wage  relent- 
less war.2 

446.  The  Election  of  1909. — In  respect  to  the  parliamentary 
strength  of  the  several  party  groups  the  elections  of  the  past  decade 
have  produced  occasional  changes  of  consequence,  but  the  situation 
to-day  is  not  widely  different  from  what  it  was  at  the  opening  of  the 
century.  In  the  Chamber  elected  in  1900  the  Extreme  Left  obtained, 
in  all,  107  seats.  In  1904  the  total  fell  to  77.  In  1906,  however,  the 
Radicals  secured  44,  the  Socialists  42,  and  the  Republicans  23 — an 
aggregate  of  109;  and  following  the  elections  of  March  7  and  14,  1909, 
the  quotas  were,  respectively,  37,  43,  and  23,  aggregating  103.  The 
falling-off  in  1904  is  to  be  explained  principally  by  the  activity  of 
the  Catholics  in  the  elections  of  that  year,  and  the  recovery  in  1906  by 
the  fact  that,  sobered  by  their  reverses,  the  Socialists  had  abandoned  in 
the  meantime  the  extremer  phases  of  their  revolutionary  propaganda. 
The  elections  of  1909  were  precipitated  by  Giolitti's  dissolution  of 
the  Chamber,  February  6,  in  consequence  largely  of  the  dissatis- 
faction of  the  nation  with  the  ministry's  conciliatory  attitude  toward 
Austria-Hungary  following  the  annexation  by  that  power  of  the 
territories  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  Despite  the  excitement  by 
which  it  was  preceded,  however,  the  campaign  was  a  listless  one. 
The  foreign  situation  as  an  issue  was  soon  forgotten,  and  no  preponder- 

1  The  idea  is  expressed  in  the  phrase  cattolici  deputaii,  si,  deputati  cattolici,  no. 
8  Eufrasio,  II  Non  Expedit,  in  Nuow  Antologia,  Sept.  i,  1904. 


STATE  AND  CHURCH— POLITICAL  PARTIES  403 

ating  national  question  rose  to  assume  its  place.  The  Left  made  the 
most  of  the  opportunity  to  increase  its  parliamentary  strength,  and 
the  Catholics  were  more  than  ever  active.  The  two  forces,  however, 
in  a  measure  off-set  each  other,  and  the  mass  of  the  nation,  unreached 
by  either,  returned  the  customary  overwhelming  Governmental 
majority.  When  various  electoral  contests  had  been  decided  the 
quota  of  seats  retained  by  each  of  the  party  groups  in  the  Chamber 
was  found  to  be  as  follows:  Radicals,  37;  Socialists,  43;  Republicans, 
23;  Catholics,  16;  Constitutional  Opposition  (separated  from  the 
Government  upon  no  vital  matter  of  principle),  42;  and  Ministerial- 
ists, or  supporters  of  the  Government,  346.  These  supporters  of  the 
Government  include  men  of  varied  political  opinions,  but  collectively 
they  correspond  approximately  to  the  elements  which  in  other  coun- 
tries are  apt  to  be  designated  Liberals,  Progressives,  or  Moderates.1 

1  The  political  parties  of  Italy  are  described  briefly  in  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  II.,  Chap.  4,  and  at  more  length  in  King  and  Okey,  Italy  To-day,  Chaps.  1-3. 
Special  works  of  importance  upon  the  subject  include  M.  Minghetti,  I  parti ti 
politic!  e  la  ingerenza  loro  nella  giustizia  e  nelP  amministrazione  (26.  ed.,  Bologna, 
1881);  P.  Penciolelli,  Le  gouvernement  parlementaire  et  la  lutte  des  partis  en 
Italic  (Paris,  1911);  and  S.  Sighele,  II  nazionalismo  e  i  partiti  politici  (Milan,  1911). 
Of  value  are  R.  Bonfadini,  I  partiti  parlamentari,  in  Nuova  Antologia,  Feb.  15, 1894, 
and  A.  Torresin,  Statistica  delle  elezioni  generali  politiche,  in  La  Riforma  Sociale, 
Aug.  15,  1900.  A  useful  biography  is  W.  J.  Stillman,  Francesco  Crispi  (London, 
1899),  and  an  invaluable  repository  of  information  is  M.  Prichard-Agnetti  (trans.), 
The  Memoirs  of  Francesco  Crispi,  2  vols.  (New  York,  1912).  On  the  parties  of  the 
Extreme  Left  the  following  may  profitably  be  consulted:  F.  S.  Nitti,  II  partito 
radicale  (Turin  and  Rome,  1907);  P.  Villari,  Scritti  sulla  questione  sociale  in 
Italia  (Florence,  1902);  R.  Bonghi,  Gli  ultimi  fatti  parlamentari,  in  Nuova  Antolo- 
gia, Jan.  i,  1895;  G.  Alessio,  Partiti  e  programmi,  ibid.,  Oct.  16,  1900;  G.  Louis- 
Jaray,  Le  socialisme  municipal  en  Italic,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  May, 
1904;  R.  Meynadier,  Les  partis  d'extreme  gauche  et  la  monarchic  en  Italic,  in  Ques- 
tions Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  April  i,  1908;  F.  Magri,  Riformisti  e  rivoluzionari 
nel  partito  socialists,  italiano,  in  Rassegna  Nazionale,  Nov.  16,  1906,  and  April  i, 
1907;  R.  Soldi,  Le  varie  correnti  nel  partito  socialista  italiano,  in  Giornale  degli 
Economist},  June,  1903.  On  recent  Italian  elections  see  G.  Gidel,  Les  61ections 
generates  italiennes  de  novembre  1904,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Jan.,  1905; 
P.  Quentin-Bauchart,  Les  elections  italiennes  de  mars  1909,  ibid.,  July,  1909. 


PART  V.— SWITZERLAND 

CHAPTER  XXII 
THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS 

I.  THE  CONFEDERATION  AND  ITS  CONSTITUTIONS 

Among  the  governments  of  contemporary  Europe  that  of  the  federal 
republic  of  Switzerland  is  unique;  and  the  constitutional  experiments 
which  have  been,  and  are  being,  undertaken  by  the  Swiss  people  give 
the  nation  an  importance  for  the  student  of  politics  altogether  out  of 
proportion  to  its  size  and  population.  Nowhere  in  our  day  have  been 
put  to  the  test  in  more  thoroughgoing  fashion  the  principles  of  federal- 
ism, of  a  plural  executive,  of  proportional  representation,  of  the  in- 
itiative and  the  referendum,  and,  it  may  be  said,  of  radical  democracy 
in  general.  The  results  attained  within  a  sphere  so  restricted,  and 
under  conditions  of  race,  religion,  and  historical  tradition  so  unusual, 
may  or  may  not  be  accepted  as  evidence  of  the  universal  practicability 
of  these  principles.  At  the  least,  they  are  of  acknowledged  interest. 

447.  The  Confederation  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. — In  the  form 
in  which  it  exists  to-day  the  Swiss  Confederation  is  a  product  of  the 
middle  and  later  nineteenth  century.  The  origins  of  it,  however,  are 
to  be  traced  to  a  very  much  remoter  period.  Beginning  with  the 
alliance  of  the  three  forest  cantons  of  Uri,  Schwyz,  and  Unterwalden 
in  1 29 1,1  the  Confederation  was  built  up  through  the  gradual  creation 

1  For  an  English  version  of  the  Perpetual  League  of  1291  see  Vincent,  Govern- 
ment in  Switzerland,  285-288.  The  best  account  in  English  of  the  origins  of  the 
Confederation  is  contained  in  W.  D.  McCrackan,  The  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic 
(zd  ed.,  New  York,  1901).  Important  are  A.  Rilliet,  Les  engines  de  la  confid6ra- 
tion  suisse  (Geneva,  1868);  P.  Vauchier,  Les  commencements  de  la  confederation 
suisse  (Lausanne,  1891);  W.  Oechsli,  Die  Anfange  der  schweizerischen  Eidgenossen- 
schaft  (Zurich,  1891).  Of  the  last-mentioned  excellent  work  there  is  a  French 
translation,  under  the  title  Les  engines  de  la  confederation  suisse  (Bern,  1891). 
The  origins  of  the  Swiss  Confederation  were  described  in  a  scientific  manner  for  the 
first  time  in  the  works  of  J.  E.  Kopp:  Urkunden  zur  Geschichte  der  eidgenossischen 
Bttnde  (Leipzig  and  Berlin,  1835),  and  Geschichte  der  eidgenossischen  Btlnde 
(Leipzig  and  Berlin,  1845-1852).  The  texts  of  all  of  the  Swiss  alliances  to  1513  are 
printed  in  J.  von  Ah,  Die  Bundesbriefe  der  alten  Eidgenossen  (Einsiedeln,  1891). 

405 


406  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  new  cantons,  the  splitting  of  old  ones,  the  reorganization  of  depend- 
ent territories,  and  the  development  of  a  federal  governmental  system, 
superimposed  upon  the  constitutional  arrangements  of  the  affiliated 
states.  In  1789,  when  the  French  Directory,  at  the  instigation  of 
Napoleon,  took  it  upon  itself  to  revolutionize  Switzerland,  the  Con- 
federation consisted  of  thirteen  cantons.1  With  it  were  associated 
certain  Zugewandte  Orte,  or  allied  districts,  some  of  which  eventually 
were  erected  into  cantons,  together  with  a  number  of  Gemeine  Vogteieny 
or  subject  territories.  The  Confederation  comprised  simply  a  Staaten- 
bund,  or  league  of  essentially  autonomous,  states.  Its  only  organ  of 
common  action  was  a  diet,  in  which  each  canton  had  a  right  to  one 
vote.  Save  in  matters  of  a  purely  advisory  nature,  the  powers  of 
this  diet  were  meager  indeed.  Of  the  cantons,  some  were  mod- 
erately democratic;  others  were  highly  aristocratic.  The  political 
institutions  of  all  were,  in  large  measure,  such  as  had  survived  from 
the  Middle  Ages. 

448.  The  Helvetic  Republic. — The  result  of  the  French  interven- 
tion of  1798  was  that,  almost  instantly,  the  loosely  organized  Swiss 
confederation  was  converted  into  a  centralized  republic,  tributary  to 
France,  and  under  a  constitution  which  was  substantially  a  reproduc- 
tion of  the  French  instrument  of  1795.  Under  the  terms  of  this  con- 
stitution the  territories  of  the  Confederation  were  split  up  into  twenty- 
three  administrative  districts,  corresponding  in  but  rare  instances  to 
the  earlier  cantons,2  a  uniform  Swiss  citizenship  was  established,  a 
common  suffrage  was  introduced,  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press 
was  guaranteed,  and  unity  was  provided  for  in  the  coinage,  the  postal 
service,  and  the  penal  law.  A  government  of  ample  powers  was  set 
up,  with  its  seat  at  Lucerne,  its  organs  comprising  a  Grand  Council  of 
deputies  elected  indirectly  in  the  cantons  in  proportion  to  population, 
a  Senate  of  four  delegates  from  each  canton  (together  with  retiring 
members  of  the  Directory),  and  an  Executive  Directory  of  five  mem- 

1  Lucerne  joined  the  alliance  in  1332;  Zurich  in  1351;  Glarus  and  Zug  in  1352; 
Bern  in  1353;  Freiburg  and  Solothurn  in  1481;  Basel  and  Schaffhausen  in  1501; 
and  Appenzell  in  1513.     "Swiss  history  is  largely  the  history  of  the  drawing  to- 
gether of  bits  of  each  of  the  Imperial  kingdoms  (Germany,  Italy,  and  Burgundy) 
for  common  defense  against  a  common  foe — the  Hapsburgs;  and,  when  this  family 
have  secured  to  themselves  the  permanent  possession  of  the  Empire,  the  Swiss 
league  little  by  little  wins  its  independence  of .  the  Empire,  practically  in  1499, 
formally  in  1648.    Originally  a  member  of  the  Empire,  the  Confederation  becomes 
first  an  ally,  then  merely  a  friend."   Encyclopedia  Britannica,  nthed.,  XXVI., 
246. 

2  To  these  districts,  however,  the  name  canton  was  applied;  and,  indeed, 
this  was  the  first  occasion  upon  which  the  name  was  employed  officially  in  Switzer- 
land. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  407 

bers,  with  whom  were  associated,  for  administrative  purposes,  four 
appointed  heads  of  departments.  The  French  intervention  was 
ruthless  and  the  governmental  order  thrust  upon  the  Swiss  had  no 
root  in  national  tradition  or  interest.  The  episode  served,  however, 
to  break  the  shackles  of  mediaevalism  and  thus  to  contribute  to  the 
eventual  establishment  of  a  modernized  nationality.  July  2,  1802, 
following  a  series  of  grave  civil  disturbances,  the  constitution  of  1798 
was  superseded  by  a  new  but  similar  instrument,  which  was  imposed 
by  force  despite  an  adverse  popular  vote.1 

449.  The  Act  of  Mediation,  1803. — Under  the  circumstances  re- 
action was  inevitable,  and  the  triumph  of  the  "federalists"  came 
more  speedily  than  might  have  been  expected.  In  deference  to  pre- 
ponderating sentiment  in  the  territories,  Napoleon,  February  19,  1803, 
promulgated  the  memorable  Act  of  Mediation,  whereby  he  authorized 
the  re-establishment  of  a  political  system  that  was  essentially  federal.2 
Once  again  there  was  set  up  a  loose  confederation,  under  a  constitution 
which,  however,  provided  for  a  central  government  that  was  distinctly 
more  substantial  than  that  which  had  prevailed  prior  to  1798.  The 
right,  for  example,  to  make  war  and  to  conclude  treaties,  withdrawn 
entirely  from  the  individual  cantons,  was  conferred  specifically  upon 
the  federal  Diet.  To  the  thirteen  original  cantons  were  added  six 
new  ones — Aargau,  Thurgau,  Vaud,  Ticino,  and  the  Grisons  (St.  Gall 
and  Graubiinden) — the  first  four  formed  from  districts  which  under 
the  old  regime  had  occupied  the  status  of  subordinate  territory,  the 
last  two  having  been  formerly  "allied  states."  In  the  Diet  six  cantons 
(Bern,  Zurich,  Vaud,  Aargau,  St.  Gall,  and  Graubiinden)  which  had  a 
population  in  excess  of  100,000  were  given  each  two  votes.  All  others 
retained  a  right  to  but  one.  The  executive  authority  of  the  Confedera- 
tion was  vested  by  turns  in  the  six  cantons  of  Bern,  Freiburg,  Lucerne, 
Zurich,  Basel  and  Solothurn,  the  "directorial"  canton  being  known  as 
the  Vorort,  and  its  chief  magistrate  as  the  Landammann,  of  the  Con- 
federation. The  principle  of  centralization  was  in  large  part  aban- 
doned; but  the  equality  of  civil  rights  which  the  French  had  introduced 
was  not  allowed  by  Napoleon  to  be  molested.  It  may  be  observed 
further  that  by  the  accession  of  the  newly  created  cantons,  containing 
large  bodies  of  people  who  spoke  French,  Italian,  and  Romansch,  the 

1  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  295-312;  A.  von  Tillier,  Geschichte 
der  helvetischen  Republik,  3  vols.  (Bern,  1843);  Muret,  L'Invasion  de  la  Suisse  en 
1798  (Lausanne,  1881-1884);  L.  Marsauche,  La  confe"de"ration  helvetique  (Neu- 
chatel,  1890). 

2  It  is  in  this  instrument  that  the  Confederation  was  for  the  first  time  designated 
officially  as  "Switzerland." 


408  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

league  ceased  to  be  so  predominantly  German  as  theretofore  it  had 
been.1 

460.  The  Pact  of  1816  and  the  Revival  of  Particularism. — The  Act 
of  Mediation,  on  the  whole  not  unacceptable  to  the  majority  of  the 
Swiss  people,  save  in  that  it  had  been/imposed  by  a  foreign  power, 
continued  in  operation  until  1813.  During  the  decade  Switzerland  was 
essentially  tributary  to  France.  With  the  fall  of  Napoleon  the  situa- 
tion was  altered,  and  December  29,  1813,  fourteen  of  the  cantons, 
through  their  representatives  assembled  at  Zurich,  declared  the  in- 
strument to  be  no  longer  in  effect.  Led  by  Bern,  eight  of  the  older 
cantons  determined  upon  a  return  to  the  system  in  operation  prior  to 
1798,  involving  the  reduction  of  the  six  most  recently  created  cantons 
to  their  former  inferior  status.  Inspired  by  the  Tsar  Alexander  I., 
however,  the  majority  of  the  Allies  refused  to  approve  this  pro- 
gramme, and,  after  the  Congress  of  Vienna  had  arranged  for  the  ad- 
mission to  the  confede/acyxof  the  three  allied  districts  of  Valais, 
Geneva,  and  Neuchatel,  there  was  worked  out,  by  the  Swiss  themselves, 
a  constitution  known  as  the  "Federal  Pact,"  which  was  formally 
approved  by  the  twenty- two  cantons  at  Zurich,  August  7,  i8i5.2 

By  this  instrument  the  ties  which  bound  the  federation  together 
were  still  further  relaxed.  The  cantons  regained  almost  the  measure 
of  independence  which  they  had  possessed  prior  to  the  French  inter- 
vention. The  Diet  was  maintained,  on  the  basis  now  of  one  vote  for 
each  canton,  regardless  of  size  or  population.3  It  possessed  some  powers, 
— for  example,  that  of  declaring  war  or  peace,  with  the  consent  of 
three-fourths  of  the  cantons, — but  there  were  virtually  no  means  by 
which  the  body  could  enforce  the  decrees  which  it  enacted.  The  execu- 
tive authority  of  the  Confederation  was  vested  in  the  governments  of 
the  three  cantons  of  Zurich,  Lucerne,  and  Bern,  which,  it  was  stipu- 
lated, should  serve  in  rotation,  each  during  a  period  of  two  years. 
Practically  all  of  the  guarantees  of  common  citizenship,  religious 
toleration,  and  individual  liberty  which  the  French  had  introduced 
were  rescinded,  and  during  the  decade  following  1815  the  trend  in  most 
of  the  more  important  cantons  was  not  only  particularistic  but  also 

1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  IX.,  Chap.  4  (bibliography,  pp.  805-807).    The 
best  general  work  on  the  period  1798-1813  is  W.  Oechsli,  Geschichte  der  Schweiz 
im  XIX.  Jahrhundert  (Leipzig,  1903),  I. 

2  This  statement  needs  to  be  qualified  by  the  observation  that  the  half-canton 
Nidwalden  approved  the  constitution  August  30,  and  only  when  compelled  by  force 
to  do  so. 

3  Three  of  the  cantons — Unterwalden,  Basel,  and  Appenzell — were  divided  into 
half-cantons,  each  with  a  government  of  its  own;  but  each  possessed  only  half  a  vote 
in  the  Diet. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  409 

distinctly  reactionary.  The  smaller  and  poorer  ones  retained  largely 
their  democratic  institutions,  especially  their  Landesgemeinden,  or 
primary  assemblies,  but  it  was  only  after  1830,  and  in  some  measure 
under  the  stimulus  of  the  revolutionary  movements  of  that  year, 
that  the  majority  of  the  cantonal  governments  underwent  that  re- 
generation in  respect  to  the  suffrage  and  the  status  of  the  individual 
which  lay  behind  the  transforming  movements  of  I848.1 

461.  Attempted  Constitutional  Revision:  the  Sonderbund. — The 
period  between  1830  and  1848  was  marked  by  not  fewer  than  thirty 
revisions  of  cantonal  constitutions,  all  in  the  direction  of  broader 
democracy.2  The  purposes  of  the  liberal  leaders  of  the  day,  however, 
extended  beyond  the  democratization  of  the  individual  cantons.  The 
thing  at  which  they  aimed  ultimately  was  the  establishment,  through 
the  strengthening  of  the  Confederation,  of  a  more  effective  nationality. 
On  motion  of  the  canton  of  Thurgau,  a  committee  was  authorized 
in  1832  to  draft  a  revision  of  the  Pact.  The  instrument  which  resulted 
preserved  the  federal  character  of  the  nation,  but  provided  for  a  perma- 
nent federal  executive,  a  federal  court  of  justice,  and  the  centraliza- 
tion of  the  customs,  postal  service,  coinage,  and  military  instruction. 
By  a  narrow  majority  this  project,  in  1833,  was  defeated.  It  was  too 
radical  to  be  acceptable  to  the  conservatives,  and  not  sufficiently 
so  to  please  the  advanced  liberals. 

The  obstacles  to  be  overcome — native  conservatism,  intercantonal 
jealousy,  and  ecclesiastical  heterogeneity — were  tremendous.  More 
than  once  the  Confederation  seemed  on  the  point  of  disruption.  In 
September,  1843,  the  seven  Catholic  cantons 3  entered  into  an  alliance, 
known  as  the  Sonderbund,  for  the  purpose  of  defending  their  pecu- 
liar interests,  and  especially  of  circumventing  any  reorganization 
of  the  confederacy  which  should  involve  the  lessening  of  Catholic 
privilege;  and,  hi  December,  1845,  this  affiliation  was  converted  into 
an  armed  league.  In  July,  1847,  the  Diet,  in  session  at  Bern,  decreed 
the  dissolution  of  the  Sonderbund;  but  the  recalcitrant  cantons  re- 
fused to  abandon  the  course  upon  which  they  had  entered,  and  it 
was  only  after  an  eighteen-day  armed  conflict  that  the  obstructive 
league  was  suppressed.4 

1  B.  Van  Muyden,  La  suisse  sous  le  pacte  de  1815,  2  vols.  (Lausanne  and  Paris, 
1890-1892);  A.  von  Tillier,  Geschichte  der  Eidgenossenschaft  wahrend  der  sogen. 
Restaurationsepoche,  1814-1830,  3  vols.  (Bern  and  Ztlrich,  1848-1850);  ibid.,  Ge- 
schichte der  Eidgenossenschaft  wahrend  der  Zeit  des  sogeheissenen  Fortschritts, 
1830-1846,  3  vols.  (Bern,  1854-1855). 

2  McCracken,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  325-330. 

3  Lucerne,  Uri,  Schwyz,  Unterwalden,  Zug,  Freiburg,  and  the  Valais. 

4  A.  Stern,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Sonderbundes,  in  Historische  Zeitschrift,  1879; 


410  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

462.  The  Constitution  of  1848  and  the  Revision  of  1874. — The  war 
was  worth  while,  because  the  crisis  which  it  precipitated  afforded  the 
liberals  an  opportunity  to  bring  about  the  adoption  of  a  wholly  new 
constitution.  For  a  time  the  outlook  was  darkened  by  the  possibility 
of  foreign  intervention,  but  by  the  outbreak  of  the  revolution  of  1848 
at  Paris  that  danger  was  effectually  removed.  The  upshot  was  that, 
through  the  agency  of  a  committee  of  fourteen,  constituted,  in  fact, 
February  17, 1848 — one  week  prior  to  the  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe 
— the  nationalists  proceeded  to  incorporate  freely  the  reforms  they 
desired  in  a  constitutional  projet,  and  this  instrument  the  Diet  forth- 
with revised  slightly  and  placed  before  the  people  for  acceptance. 
By  a  vote  of  15^  cantons  (with  a  population  of  1,900,000)  to  6^2 
(with  a  population  of  290,000),  the  new  constitution  was  approved. 

The  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1848,  ensuring  a  modified 
revival  of  the  governmental  regime  of  1798-1803,  comprised  a  dis- 
tinct victory  for  the  Radical,  or  Centralist,  party.  During  the  two 
decades  which  followed  this  party  maintained  complete  control  of 
the  federal  government,  and  in  1872  it  brought  forward  the  draft  of 
a  new  constitution  whose  centralizing  tendencies  were  still  more  pro- 
nounced. By  popular  vote  this  proffered  constitution  was  rejected. 
Another  draft,  however,  was  prepared  and,  April  19,  1874,  by  a  vote 
of  14^2  cantons  against  7^,  it  was  adopted.  The  popular  vote  was 
340,149  to  198,013.  Amended  subsequently  upon  a  large  number  of 
occasions,1  the  instrument  of  1874  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
Swiss  Confederation  to-day,  altnough  it  is  essential  to  observe  that 
it  represents  only  a  revision  of  the  constitution  of  1848.  As  a  recent 
writer  has  said,  "the  one  region  on  the  continent  to  which  the  storms 
of  1848  brought  immediate  advantage  was  Switzerland,  for  to  them 
it  owes  its  transformation  into  a  well-organized  federal  state."  2 

W.  B.  Duffield,  The  War  of  the  Sonderbund,  in  English  Historical  Review,  Oct.,  1895; 
and  P.  Matter,  Le  Sonderbund,  in  Annales  de  VJLcole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
Jan.  15,  1896. 

1  For  the  methods  of  constitutional  amendment  see  p.  431. 

2  W.  Oechsli,  in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  234.    A  brief  survey  of  the 
constitutional  history  of  Switzerland  from  1848  to  1874  is  contained  in  Chap.  8  of 
the  volume  mentioned  (bibliography,  pp.  914-918).    Two  excellent  works  are  C. 
Hilty,  Les  constitutions  f6d6rales  de  la  conf6d6ration  suisse;  expos6  historique 
(Neuchatel,  1891),  and  T.  Curti,  Geschichte  der  Schweiz  im  XIX.  Jahrhundert 
(Neuchatel,  1902).    A  fairly  satisfactory  book  is  L.  Hug  and  R.  Stead,  Switzerland 
(New  York,  1889).    The  text  of  the  constitution  may  be  found  in  S.  Kaiser  and 
J.  Strickler,  Geschichte  und  Texte  der  Bundesverfassungen  der  schweizerischen 
Eidgenossenschaft   von   der  helvetischen   Staatsumwalzung   bis  zur   Gegenwart 
(Bern,  1901),  and  in  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  405-431.     English 
versions  are  printed  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  257-290;  McCrackan, 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  411 


II.  THE  NATION  AND  THE  STATES 

453.  Dominance  of  the  Federal  Principle. — In  its  preamble  the 
Swiss  constitution  proclaims  its  object  to  be  "to  confirm  the  alliance 
of  the  Confederation  and  to  maintain  and  to  promote  the  unity, 
strength,  and  honor  of  the  Swiss  nation;  "  and  in  its  second  article  it 
affirms  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  Confederation  "to  secure  the  in- 
dependence of  the  country  against  foreign  nations,  to  maintain  peace 
and  order  within,  to  protect  the  liberty  and  the  rights  of  the  confed- 
erates, and  to  foster  their  common  welfare."  *  The  use  of  the  term 
"nation"  (which,  curiously,  nowhere  occurs  in  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States)  might  seem  to  imply  a  considerably  larger  measure  of 
centralization  than  in  fact  exists.  For  although  the  effect  of  the 
constitution  of  1848  was  to  convert  a  loosely  organized  league  into  a 
firmly  constructed  state — to  transform,  as  the  Germans  would  say,  a 
Staatenbund  into  a  Bundesstaat — the  measure  of  consolidation  attained 
fell,  and  still  falls,  somewhat  short  of  that  which  has  been  realized 
in  the  United  States,  and  even  in  Germany.  There  are  in  the  Con- 
federation twenty-two  cantons,  of  which  three  (Unterwalden,  Basel, 
and  Appenzell)  have  split  into  half-cantons;  so  that  there  are  really 
twenty-five  political  units,  each  with  its  own  government,  its  own 
laws,  and  its  own  political  conditions.  In  territorial  extent  these 
cantons  vary  all  the  way  from  2,773  to  J4  square  miles,  and  in  popula- 

Rise  of  the  Swiss 'Republic,  373-403;  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  289- 
332;  and  Old  South  Leaflets,  General  Series,  No.  18.  The  texts  of  all  federal  con- 
stitutions after  1798  are  included  in  the  work  of  Kaiser  and  Strickler.  A  good 
collection  of  recent  documents  is  P.  Wolf,  Die  schweizerische  Bundesgesetzgebung 
(2d  ed.,  Basel,  1905-1908).  The  principal  treatises  on  the  Swiss  constitutional 
system  are  J.  J.  Blumer,  Handbuch  des  schweizerischen  Bundesstaatsrechtes 
(2d  ed.,  Schaffhausen,  1877-1887);  J.  Schollenberger,  Bundesverfassung  der  schweiz- 
erischen Eidgenossenschaft  (Berlin,  1905);  ibid.,  Das  Bundesstaatsrecht  der 
Schweiz  Geschichte  und  System  (Berlin,  1902);  and  W.  Burckhardt,  Kommentar 
der  Schweiz;  Bundeverfassung  vom  29  Mai  1874  (Bern,  1905).  Two  excellent 
briefer  treatises  are  N.  Droz,  Instruction  civique  (Lausanne,  1884)  and  A.  von 
Orelli,  Das  Staatsrecht  der  schweizerischen  Eidgenossenschaft  (Freiburg,  1885),  in 
Marquardsen's  Handbuch.  The  best  treatise  in  English  upon  the  Swiss  govern- 
mental system  is  J.  M.  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland  (New  York,  1900). 
Older  works  include  B.  Moses,  The  Federal  Government  of  Switzerland  (Oakland, 
1889);  F.  Adams  and  C.  Cunningham,  The  Swiss  Confederation  (London,  1889); 
and  B.  Winchester,  The  Swiss  Republic  (Philadelphia,  1891).  Mention  should  be 
made  of  A.  B.  Hart,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Federal  Government  (Boston, 
1891);  also  of  an  exposition  of  Swiss  federalism  in  Dicey,  Law  of  the  Constitution, 
7th  ed.,  517-529- 

1  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  257. 


412  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

tion,  from  642,744  to  13,796; 1  and  the  primary  fact  of  the  Swiss 
governmental  system  is  the  remarkable  measure  of  political  independ- 
ence which  these  divisions,  small  as  well  as  large,  possess. 

454.  The  Sovereignty  of  the  Cantons. — In  the  United  States  there 
was  throughout  a  prolonged  period  a  fundamental  difference  of  opinion 
relative  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  individual  states  composing  the 
Union.    The  Constitution  contains  no  explicit  affirmation  upon  the 
subject,  and  views  maintained  by  nationalists  and  state  right's  ad- 
vocates alike  have  always  been  determined  of  necessity  by  interpreta- 
tion of  history  and  of  public  law.    In  Switzerland,  on  the  contrary, 
there  is,  upon  the  main  issue,  no  room  for  doubt.    "The  cantons  are 
sovereign,"  asserts  the  constitution,  "so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is 
not  limited  by  the  federal  constitution;  and,  as  such,  they  exercise  all 
the  rights  which  are  not  delegated  to  the  federal  government."  2   As  in 
the  United  States,  the  federal  government  is  restricted  to  the  exercise 
of  powers  that  are  delegated,  while  the  federated  states  are  free  to 
exercise  any  that  are  not  delegated  exclusively  to  the  nation,  nor 
prohibited  to  the  states.     In  the  Swiss  constitution,  however,  the 
delimitation  of  powers,  especially  those  of  a  legislative  character, 
is  so  much  more  minute  than  in  the  American  instrument  that  compar- 
atively little  room  is  left  for  difference  of  opinion  as  to  what  is  and 
what  is  not  "delegated."  3 

455.  Federal  Control  of  the  Cantons. — After  the  analogy  of  the 
United  States,  where  the  nation  guarantees  to  each  of  the  states  a 
republican  form  of  government,  the  Swiss  Confederation  guarantees 
to  the  cantons  their  territory,  their  sovereignty  (within  the  limits  fixed 
by  the  fundamental  law),  their  constitutions,  the  liberty  and  rights 
of  their  people,  and  the  privileges  and  powers  which  the  people  have 
conferred  upon  those  in  authority.    The  cantons  are  empowered,  and 
indeed  required,  to  call  upon  the  Confederation  for  the  guaranty  of 
their  constitutions,  and  it  is  stipulated  that  such  guaranty  shall  be 
accorded  in  all  instances  where  it  can  be  shown  that  the  constitution 

1  The  total  area  of  the  Confederation  is  approximately  16,000  square  miles;  the 
total  population,  according  to  the  census  of  December  i,  1910,  is  3,741,971. 

2  Art.  3.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II..  257. 

3  In  the  form  in  which  it  now  exists  the  Swiss  constitution  is  one  of  the  most 
comprehensive  instruments  of  the  kind  in  existence.   Aside  from  various  temporary 
provisions,  it  contains,  in  all,  123  articles,  some  of  considerable  length.    As  is  true 
of  the  German  constitution,  there  is  in  it  much  that  ordinarily  has  no  place  in  the 
fundamental  law  of  a  nation.    A  curious  illustration  is  afforded  by  an  amendment 
of  1893  to  the  effect  that  "the  killing  of  animals  without  benumbing  before  the 
drawing  of  blood  is  forbidden;  this  provision  applies  to  every  method  of  slaughter 
and  to  every  species  of  animals."    Art.  25.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  263. 
The  adoption  of  this  amendment  was  an  expression  of  antisemitic  prejudice. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  413 

in  question  contains  nothing  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  federal 
constitution,  that  it  assures  the  exercise  of  political  rights  according 
to  republican  forms,  that  it  has  been  ratified  by  the  people,  and  that 
it  may  be  amended  at  any  time  by  a  majority  of  the  citizens.1  A 
cantonal  constitution  which  has  not  been  accorded  the  assent  of  the 
two  houses  of  the  federal  assembly  is  inoperative;  and  the  same  thing 
is  true  df-even  tiielninutest  amendment.  The  control  of  the  federal 
government  over  the  constitutional  systems  of  the  states  is  thus  more 
immediate,  if  not  more  effective,  than  in  the  United  States,  where, 
after  a  state  has  been  once  admitted  to  the  Union,  the  federal  power 
can  reach  its  constitutional  arrangements  only  through  the  agency  of 
the  courts.  Finally,  in  the  event  of  insurrection  the  government  of  the 
Confederation  possesses  a  right  to  intervene  in  the  affairs  of  a  canton, 
with  or  without  a  request  for  such  intervention  by  the  constituted 
cantonal  authorities.  This  right  was  exercised  very  effectively  upon 
the  occasion  of  the  Ticino  disorders  of  1889-1890. 

Like  the  American  states,  but  unlike  the  German,  the  Swiss  cantons 
enjoy  a  complete  equality  of  status  and  of  rights.  They  are  forbidden 
to  enter  into  alliances  or  treaties  of  a  political  nature  among  them- 
selves, though  they  are  permitted  to  conclude  intercantonal  conven- 
tions upon  legislative,  administrative,  and  judicial  subjects,  pro- 
vided such  conventions,  upon  inspection  by  the  federal  officials,  are 
found  to  be  devoid  of  stipulations  contrary  to  the  federal  constitution 
or  inimical  to  the  rights  of  any  canton.  In  the  event  of  disputes  be- 
tween cantons,  the  questions  at  issue  are  required  to  be  submitted  to 
the  federal  government  for  decision,  and  the  individual  canton  must 
refrain  absolutely  from  the  use  of  violence,  and  even  from  military 
preparation. 

466.  Powers  Vested  Exclusively  in  the  Confederation. — Within  the 
text  of  the  constitution  the  division  of  powers  between  the  federal  and 
the  cantonal  governments  is  minute,  though  far  from  systematic. 
The  clearest  conception  of  the  existing  arrangements  may  perhaps  be 
had  by  observing  that  provision  is  made  for  three  principal  categories 
of  powers:  (i)  those  that  the  Confederation  has  an  exclusive  right  to 
exercise,  some  being  merely  permissive,  others  obligatory;  (2)  those 
which  the  Confederation  is  required,  or  allowed,  to  exercise  in  con- 
currence with  the  cantons;  and  (3)  those  which  are  not  permitted  to  be 
exercised  at  all. 

Of  powers  committed  absolutely  to  the  Confederation,  the  most 
important  are  those  of  declaring  war,  making  peace,  and  concluding 
alliances  and  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  especially  treaties  relating 
1  Arts.  5  and  6.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  258. 


414  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

to  tariffs  and  commerce.1  The  Confederation  is  forbidden  to  main- 
tain a  standing  army,  and  no  canton,  without  federal  permission,  may 
maintain  a  force  numbering  more  than  three  hundred  men.  None 
the  less,  by  law  of  1907,  every  male  Swiss  citizen  between  the  ages  of 
twenty  and  forty-eight  is  liable  to  military  service,  and  the  constitu- 
tion vests  not  only  the  sole  right  of  declaring  war  but  also  the  or- 
ganization and  control  of  the  national  forces  in  the  Confederation.2 
The  neutralized  status  with  which,  by  international  agreement, 
Switzerland  has  been  vested  renders  a  war  in  which  the  nation  should 
be  involved,  other,  at  any  rate,  than  a  civil  contest,  extremely  im- 
probable.3 Within  the  domain  of  international  relations,  the  cantons 
retain  the  right  to  conclude  treaties  with  foreign  powers  respecting 
border  and  police  relations  and  the  administration  of  public  property. 
All  remaining  phases  of  diplomatic  intercourse  are  confided  exclusively 
to  the  Confederation.  Other  functions  vested  in  the  federal  author- 
ities alone  include  the  control  of  the  postal  service  and  of  telegraphs; 
the  coining  of  money  and  the  maintenance  of  a  monetary  system;  the 
issue  of  bank  notes  and  of  other  forms  of  paper  money;  the  fixing  of 
standards  of  weights  and  measures;  the  maintenance  of  a  monopoly 
of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  gunpowder;  and  the  enactment  of 
supplementary  legislation  relating  to  domicile  and  citizenship. 

467.  Concurrent  Powers  and  Powers  Denied  the  Confederation. — 
Among  powers  which  are  intrusted  to  the  Confederation,  to  be  exer- 
cised in  more  or  less  close  conjunction  with  the  cantonal  governments, 
are:  (i)  the  making  of  provision  for  public  education,  the  cantons 
maintaining  a  system  of  compulsory  primary  instruction,  the  Confeder- 
ation subsidizing  educational  establishments  of  higher  rank; 4  (2)  the 
regulation  of  child  labor,  industrial  conditions,  emigration,  and  in- 
surance; (3)  the  maintenance  of  highways;  (4)  the  regulation  of  the 
press;  and  (5)  the  preservation  of  public  order  and  of  peace  between 
members  of  different  religious  organizations. 

Several  explicit  prohibitions  rest  upon  the  authorities  of  both  Con- 
federation and  cantons.  No  treaties  may  be  concluded  whereby  it  is 
agreed  to  furnish  troops  to  other  countries.  No  canton  may  expel 
from  its  own  territory  one  of  its  citizens,  or  deprive  him  of  his  rights. 
No  person  may  be  compelled  to  become  a  member  of  a  religious  soci- 
ety, to  receive  religious  instruction,  to  perform  any  religious  act,  or  to 

1  Art.  8.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  258. 

2  Arts.  15-23.    Ibid.,  II.,  260-262. 

1  McCrackan,  Rise  of  the  Swiss  Republic,  354-363;  Payen,  La  neutralisation  dfc 
la  Suisse,  in  Annales  de  Vttcole  Libre  des  Sciences  Polttiques,  Oct.  15,  1892. 
4  Art.  27.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  263. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  415 

incur  penalty  of  any  sort  by  reason  of  his  religious  opinions.1  No 
death  penalty  may  be  pronounced  for  a  political  offense.  The  pro- 
hibitions, in  short,  which  the  constitution  imposes  upon  federal 
and  cantonal  authorities  comprise  essentially  a  bill  of  rights,  com- 
parable with  any  to  be  found  in  a  contemporary  European  con- 
stitution. 

468.  General  Aspects. — The  fundamental  thing  to  be  observed  is 
that  under  the  Swiss  constitution,  as  under  the  German,  the  legislative 
powers  of  the  federal  government  are  comprehensive,  while  the  execu- 
tive authority,  and  especially  the  executive  machinery,  is  meager. 
The  Confederation  has  power  to  legislate  upon  many  subjects — 
military  service,  the  construction  and  operation  of  railroads,  educa- 
tion, labor,  taxation,  monopolies,  insurance,  commerce,  coinage, 
banking,  citizenship,  civil  rights,  bankruptcy,  criminal  law,  and  nu- 
merous other  things.  In  respect  to  taxation  the  federal  government 
possesses  less  power  than  does  that  of  Germany,  and  distinctly  less 
than  does  that  of  the  United  States,  for  this  power  is  confined  to  the 
single  field  of  customs  legislation;  2  but  in  virtually  every  other  direc- 
tion the  legislative  competence  of  the  Swiss  central  authorities  is  more 
extended.  It  is  worth  observing,  furthermore,  that  the  centralizing 
tendency  since  1874  has  found  expression  in  a  number  of  constitutional 
amendments  whose  effect  has  been  materially  to  enlarge  the  domain 
covered  by  federal  legislation.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the 
amendment  of  July  n,  1897,  granting  the  Confederation  power  to 
enact  laws  concerning  the  traffic  in  food  products,  that  of  November 
13,  1898,  extending  the  federal  legislative  power  over  the  domain  of 
civil  and  criminal  law,  that  of  July  5,  1908,  conferring  upon  the  Con- 
federation power  to  enact  uniform  regulations  respecting  the  arts  and 
trades  (thus  bringing  substantially  the  entire  domain  of  industrial 
legislation  within  the  province  of  the  Confederation),  and  that  of 
October  25,  1908,  placing  the  utilization  of  water-power  under  the 
supervision  of  the  central  authorities. 

1  Art.  49.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  271-272. 

2  "The  customs  system  shall  be  within  the  control  of  the  Confederation.    The 
Confederation  may  levy  export  and  import  duties."    Art.  28.     Dodd,  Modern 
Constitutions,  II.,  263.    The  constitution  stipulates  further  that  imports  of  mate- 
rials essential  for  the  manufactures  and  agriculture  of  the  country,  and  of  neces- 
saries of  life  in  general,  shall  be  taxed  as  low  as  possible;  also  that  export  taxes  shall 
be  kept  at  a  minimum.    Art.  42  prescribes  that  the  expenditures  of  the  Confedera- 
tion shall  be  met  from  the  income  from  federal  property,  the  proceeds  of  the  postal 
and  telegraph  services,  the  proceeds  of  the  powder  monopoly,  half  of  the  gross 
receipts  from  the  tax  on  military  exemptions  levied  by  the  cantons,  the  proceeds  of 
the  federal  customs,  and,  finally,  in  case  of  necessity,  contributions  levied  upon  the 
cantons  in  proportion  to  their  wealth  and  taxable  resources.    Dodd,  II.,  269. 


416  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Within  the  domain  of  administrative  functions,  the  principle  is 
rather  that  of  committing  to  the  federal  agencies  a  minimum  of  author- 
ity. Beyond  the  management  of  foreign  relations,  the  administration 
of  the  customs,  the  postal,  and  the  telegraph  services,  and  of  the 
alcohol  and  powder  monopolies,  and  the  control  of  the  arsenals  and 
of  the  army  when  in  the  field,  the  federal  government  exercises  directly 
but  inconsiderable  executive  authority.  It  is  only  in  relation  to  the 
cantonal  governments  that  its  powers  of  an  administrative  nature  are 
large;  and  even  there  they  are  only  supervisory.  In  a  number  of 
highly  important  matters  the  constitution  leaves  to  the  canton  the 
right  to  make  and  enforce  law,  at  the  same  time  committing  to  the 
Confederation  the  right  to  inspect,  and  even  to  enforce,  the  execution 
of  such  measures.  Thus  it  is  stipulated  that  the  cantons  shall  provide 
for  primary  instruction  which  shall  be  compulsory,  non-sectarian,  and 
free;  and  that  "the  Confederation  shall  take  the  necessary  measures 
against  such  cantons  as  do  not  fulfill  these  duties."  1  Not  only,  there- 
fore, does  the  federal  government  enforce  federal  law,  through  its  own 
officials  or  through  those  of  the  canton;  it  supervises  the  enactment 
and  enforcement  of  measures  which  the  constitutiBn~eTl}ol6s~^on  the 
cantons.2 

in.  CANTONAL  LEGISLATION:  THE  REFERENDUM  AND  THE  INITIATIVE 

459.  Variation  of  Cantonal  Institutions. — In  its  fundamental  features 
the  federal  government  of  Switzerland  represents  largely  an  adaptation 
of  the  political  principles  and  organs  most  commonly  prevailing  within 
the  individual  cantons;  from  which  it  follows  that  an  understanding  of 
the  mechanism  of  the  federation  is  conditioned  upon  an  acquaintance 
with  that  of  the  canton.3  Anything,  however,  in  the  nature  of  a  de- 
scription which  will  apply  to  the  governmental  systems  of  all  of  the 
twenty-five  cantons  and  half-cantons  is  impossible.  Variation  among 
them,  in  both  structure  and  procedure,  is  at  least  as  common  and  as 
wide  as  among  the  governments  of  the  American  commonwealths. 
Each  canton  has  its  own  constitution,  and  the  Confederation  is  bound 
to  guarantee  the  maintenance  of  this  instrument  regardless  of  the  pro- 
visions which  it  may  contain,  provided  only,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 

1  Art.  27.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  263. 

2  A.  Souriac,  Involution  de  la  juridiction  federate  en  Suisse  (Paris,  1909). 

3  On  the  governments  of  the  cantons  the  principal  general  works  are  J.  Schollen- 
berger,  Grundriss  der  Staats-  und  Verwaltungsrechts  der  schweizerischen  Kantone, 
3  vols.  (Zurich,  1898-1900),  and  J.  Dubs,  Das  offentliche  Recht  der  schweizerischen 
Eidgenossenschaft  (Zurich,  1877-1878),  I.     Brief  accounts  will  be  found  in  Vin- 
cent, the  Government  of  Switzerland,  Chaps.  1-12. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  417 

that  there  is  in  it  nothing  that  is  contrary  to  the  federal  constitution, 
that  it  establishes  a  republican  system  of  government,  and  that  it  has 
been  ratified  by  the  people  and  may  be  amended  upon  demand  of  a  ma- 
jority. The  constitutions  of  the  cantons  are  amended  easily  and 
frequently;  but  while  it  may  be  affirmed  that,  in  consequence  of  their 
flexibility,  they  tend  toward  more  rather  than  toward  less  uniformity, 
the  diversity  that  survives  among  them  still  proclaims  strikingly  their 
separatist  origin  and  character. 

The  point  at  which  the  governments  of  the  cantons  differ  most 
widely  is  in  respect  to  arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  the  functions 
of  legislation.  Taking  the  nature  of  the  legislative  process  as  a  basis 
of  division,  there  may  be  said  to  be  two  classes  of  cantonal  govern- 
ments. One  comprises  those  in  which  the  ultimate  public  powers  are 
vested  in  a  Landesgemeinde,  or  primary  assembly  of  citizens;  the  other, 
those  in  which  such  powers  have  been  committed  to  a  body  of  elected 
representatives.  The  second  class,  as  will  appear,  falls  again  into  two 
groups,  i.  e.,  those  in  which  the  employment  of  the  referendum  is  obliga- 
tory and  those  in  which  it  is  merely  optional. 

460.  The  Landesgemeinde. — Prior  to  the  French  intervention  of 
1798  there  were  in  the  Confederation  no  fewer  than  eleven  cantons 
whose  government  was  of  the  Landesgemeinde  type.  To-day  there  are 
but  six  cantons  and  half-cantons — those,  namely,  of  Uri,  Glarus,  the 
two  Unterwaldens,  and  the  two  Appenzells.  Under  varying  circum- 
stances, but  principally  by  reason  of  the  increasingly  unwieldy  character 
of  the  Landesgemeinde  as  population  has  grown,  the  rest  have  gone 
over  to  the  representative  system.  All  of  those  in  which  the  institution 
survives  are  small  in  area  and  are  situated  in  the  more  sparsely  popu- 
lated mountain  districts  where  conditions  of  living  are  primitive  and 
where  there  is  little  occasion  for  governmental  elaborateness.1 

Nominally,  the  Landesgemeinde  is  an  assembly  composed  of  all 
male  citizens  of  the  canton  who  have  attained  their  majority.  Actually, 
it  is  a  gathering  of  those  who  are  able,  or  disposed,  to  be  present.  The 
assembly  meets  regularly  once  a  year,  in  April  or  May,  at  a  centrally 
located  place  within  the  canton,  and  usually  in  an  open  meadow. 
When  necessity  arises,  there  may  be  convened  a  special  session.  With 

1  The  area  of  Zug  is  92  square  miles;  of  Glarus,  267;  of  the  Unterwaldens,  295; 
of  the  Appenzells,  162.  The  longest  dimension  of  any  one  of  these  cantons  is  but 
thirty  miles,  and  the  distance  to  be  traversed  by  the  citizen  who  wishes  to  attend 
the  Landesgemeinde  of  his  canton  rarely  exceeds  ten  miles.  It  was  once  the  fashion 
to  represent  the  Swiss  Landesgemeinde  as  a  direct  survival  of  the  primitive  Ger- 
manic popular  assembly.  For  the  classic  statement  of  this  view  see  Freeman, 
Growth  of  the  English  Constitution,  Chap.  i.  There  is,  however,  every  reason  to 
believe  that  between  the  two  institutions  there  is  no  historical  connection. 


418  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  men  come  ordinarily  the  women  and  children,  and  the  occasion 
partakes  of  the  character  of  a  picturesque,  even  if  solemn  and  cere- 
monious, holiday.  Under  the  presidency  of  the  Landammann,  or 
chief  executive  of  the  canton,  the  assembly  passes  with  despatch  upon 
whatsoever  proposals  may  be  laid  before  it  by  the  Landrath,  or  Greater 
Council.  In  the  larger  assemblies  there  is  no  privilege  of  debate. 
Measures  are  simply  adopted  or  rejected.  In  the  smaller  gatherings, 
however,  it  is  still  possible  to  preserve  some  restricted  privilege  of 
discussion.  Unless  a  secret  ballot  is  specifically  demanded,  voting  is  by 
show  of  hands.  Theoretically,  any  citizen  possesses  the  right  to  initiate 
propositions.  In  practice,  however,  virtually  all  measures  emanate 
from  the  Greater  Council,  and  if  the  private  citizen  wishes  to  bring 
forward  a  proposal  he  will  be  expected  to  do  so  by  suggesting  it  to  the 
Council  rather  than  by  introducing  it  personally  in  the  assembly. 
The  competence  of  the  Landesgemeinde  varies  somewhat  from  canton 
to  canton,  but  in  all  cases  it  is  very  comprehensive.  The  assembly 
authorizes  the  revision  of  the  constitution,  enacts  all  laws,  levies  direct 
taxes,  grants  public  privileges,  establishes  offices,  and  elects  all  executive 
and  judicial  officials  of  the  canton.  Directly  or  indirectly,  it  discharges, 
indeed,  all  of  the  fundamental  functions  of  government.  It  is  the  sover- 
eign organ  of  a  democracy  as  thoroughgoing  as  any  the  world  has  ever 
known.1 

461.  The  Greater  Council. — In  every  canton,  whether  or  not  of  the 
Landesgemeinde  type,  there  is  a  popularly  elected  representative 
body,  the  Greater  Council,  which  performs  a  larger  or  smaller  service 
in  the  process  of  legislation.  This  body  is  variously  known  as  the 
Grosser  Rath,  the  Landrath,  and  the  Kantonsrath.  In  the  cantons  that 
maintain  the  Landesgemeinde  the  functions  of  the  Greater  Council  are 
subsidiary.  It  chooses  minor  officials,  audits  accounts,  and  passes 
unimportant  ordinances;  but  its  principal  business  is  the  preparation  of 
measures  for  the  consideration  of  the  Landesgemeinde.  In  the  cantons, 
however,  in  which  the  Landesgemeinde  does  not  exist,  the  Greater  Coun- 
cil is  a  more  important  institution,  for  there  it  comprises  the  only  law- 
making  body  which  is  ever  brought  together  at  one  time  or  place.  Where 
there  exists  the  obligatory  referendum,  i.  e.,  where  all  legislative  measures 
are  submitted  to  a  direct  popular  vote,  the  decisions  of  the  Council  are 
but  provisional.  But  where  the  referendum  is  optional  the  Council 
acquires  in  many  matters  the  substance  of  final  authority. 

Members  of  the  Council  are  elected  regularly  in  districts  by  direct 
popular  vote.  The  size  of  constituencies  varies  from  188  people  in 
Obwalden  and  250  in  Inner  Appenzell  to  1,500  in  St.  Gall  and  Zurich 
1  H.  D.  Lloyd,  A  Sovereign  People  (New  York,  1907),  Chap.  4. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  419 

and  2,500  in  Bern.  The  electors  include  all  males  who  have  completed 
their  twentieth  year  and  who  are  in  possession  of  full  civil  rights.  The 
term  of  members  varies  from  one  to  six  years,  but  is  generally  three  or 
four.  There  are,  as  a  rule,  two  meetings  annually,  in  some  cantons  a 
larger  number.  Beginning  with  the  canton  of  Ticino  hi  1891,  there 
has  been  introduced  into  the  governmental  systems  of  several  cantons 
and  of  the  two  cities  of  Bern  and  Basel  the  principle  of  proportional 
representation.  The  details  vary,  but  the  general  principle  is  that  each 
political  party  shall  be  entitled  to  seats  in  the  Greater  Council  in  the 
closest  practicable  proportion  that  the  party  vote  bears  to  the  entire 
vote  cast  within  the  canton.  Those  cantons  where  this  principle  is  in 
operation  are  laid  out  in  districts,  each  of  which  is  entitled  to  two  or 
more  representatives,  and  the  individual  elector,  while  forbidden  to 
cast  more  than  one  vote  for  a  given  candidate,  casts  a  number  of  votes 
corresponding  to  the  number  of  seats  to  be  filled.1 

462.  The  Referendum:  Origins  and  Operation. — The  most  interesting 
if  not  the  most  characteristic,  of  Swiss  political  institutions  is  the  refer- 
endum. The  origins  of  the  referendum  in  Switzerland  may  be  traced 
to  a  period  at  least  as  early  as  the  sixteenth  century.  The  principle 
was  applied  first  of  all  in  the  complicated  governments  of  two  territories 
— the  Grisons  and  the  Valais — which  have  since  become  cantons  but 
which  at  the  time  mentioned  were  districts  merely  affiliated  with  the 
Confederation.  In  the  later  sixteenth  century  there  were  traces  of  the 
same  principle  in  Bern  and  in  Zurich.  And,  in  truth,  the  political 
arrangements  of  the  early  Confederation  involved  the  employment  of 
a  device  which  at  least  closely  resembled  the  referendum.  Delegates 
sent  by  the  cantons  to  the  Diet  were  commissioned  only  ad  audiendum 
et  referendum-,  that  is  to  say,  they  were  authorized,  not  to  agree  finally 
to  proposals,  but  simply  to  hear  them  and  to  refer  them  to  the  cantonal 
governments  for  ultimate  decision. 

In  its  present  form,  however,  the  Swiss  referendum  originated  in 
the  canton  of  St.  Gall  in  1830.  It  is  distinctively  a  nineteenth  century 
creation  and  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  product  of  the  political  philosophy 

1  For  an  excellent  account  of  the  introduction  of  proportional  representation  in 
the  canton  of  Ticino  see  J.  Galland,  La  democratic  tessinoise  et  la  representation 
proportionnelle  (Grenoble,  1909).  The  canton  in  which  the  principle  has  been 
adopted  most  recently  is  St.  Gall.  In  1893,  JQ01*  and  1906  it  was  there  rejected 
by  the  people,  but  at  the  referendum  of  February,  1912,  it  was  approved,  and  in 
the  following  November  the  cantonal  legislature  formally  adopted  it.  For  a  brief 
exposition  of  the  workings  of  the  system  see  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,, 
Chap.  4.  An  important  study  of  the  subject  is  E.  Kloti,  Die  Proportionalwahl  in 
der  Schweiz;  Geschichte,  Darsteltung  und  Kritik  (Bern,  1901).  On  the  proposed 
introduction  of  proportional  representation  in  the  federal  government  see  p.  433. 


420  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Rousseau,  the  fundamental  tenet  of  which  was  that  laws  ought  to  be 
enacted,  not  through  representatives,  but  by  the  people  directly.1 
The  principle  of  the  referendum  may  be  applied  in  two  essentially  dis- 
tinct directions,  i.  e.,  to  constitutions  and  constitutional  amendments 
and  to  ordinary  laws.  The  referendum  as  applied  to  constitutional 
instruments  exists  to-day  in  every  one  of  the  Swiss  cantons.2  It  is 
in  no  sense,  however,  peculiar  to  Switzerland.  The  same  principle 
obtains  in  several  English-speaking  countries,  as  well  as  upon  occasion 
elsewhere.  The  referendum  as  applied  to  ordinary  laws,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  distinctively  Swiss.  In  our  own  day  it  is  being  brought  into 
use  in  certain  of  the  American  commonwealths  and  elsewhere,  but  it 
is  Swiss  in  origin  and  spirit.  Inaugurated  in  part  to  supply  the  need 
created  by  a  defective  system  of  representation  and  in  part  in  deference 
to  advanced  democratic  theory,  the  referendum  for  ordinary  laws  exists 
to-day  in  every  canton  of  Switzerland  save  only  that  of  Freiburg.  In 
some  cantons  the  referendum  is  obligatory,  in  others  it  is  "facultative,"  y 
or  optional.  Where  the  referendum  is  obligatory  every  legislative/ 
measure  must  be  referred  to  popular  vote;  where  it  is  optional,  a  measure 
is  referred  only  upon  demand  of  a  specified  number  or  proportion  of 
voters.  A  petition  calling  for  a  referendum  must  be  presented  to  the 
executive  council  of  the  canton,  as  a  rule,  within  thirty  days  after  the 
enactment  of  the  measure  upon  which  it  is  proposed  that  a  vote  be 
taken.  The  number  of  signers  required  to  make  the  petition  effective 
varies  from  500  in  Zug  to  6,000  in  St.  Gall.  Likewise,  the  proportion  of 
voters  which  is  competent  to  reject  a  measure  is  variable.  In  some 
cantons  a  majority  of  all  enfranchised  citizens  is  required;  in  others, 
a  simple  majority  of  those  actually  voting  upon  the  proposition  in  hand. 
In  the  event  of  popular  rejection  of  a  measure  which  the  cantonal  legis- 
lature has  passed,  the  executive  council  gives  the  proper  notice  to  the 
legislature,  which  thereupon  pronounces  the  measure  void.3 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  243. 

2  It  will  be  observed,  of  course,  that  in  the  cantons  which  maintain  a  Landes- 
gemeinde  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  employment  of  the  referendum  upon  either 
constitutional  or  legislative  questions.     The  people  there  act  directly  and  nec- 
essarily upon  every  important  proposition. 

3  Important  treatises  on  the  Swiss  referendum  are  T.  Curti,  Geschichte  der 
schweizerischen  Volksgesetzgebung  (Zurich,  1885);  ibid.,  Die  Volksabstimmung  in 
der  schweizerischen  Gesetzgebung  (Zurich,  1886).    A  French  version  of  the  former 
work,  by  J.  Ronjat,  has  appeared  under  the  title  Le  referendum:  histoire  de  la  16gis- 
lation  populaire  en  Suisse  (Paris,  1905).    Of  large  value  is  Curti,  Die  Resultate  des 
schweizerischen  Referendums  (26.  ed.,  Bern,  1911).    An  older  account  is  J.  A. 
Herzog,  Das  Referendum  in  der  Schweiz  (Berlin,  1885).    An  excellent  book  is  S. 
Duploige,  Le  referendum  en  Suisse  (Brussels,  1892),  of  which  there  is  an  English 
translation,  by  C.  P,  Trevelyan,  under  the  title  The  Referendum  in  Switzerland 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  SYSTEM— THE  CANTONS  421 

463.  The  Initiative. — The  complement  of  the  referendum  is  the 
initiative.    Through  the  exercise  of  the  one  the  people  may  prevent 
the  taking  effect  of  a  law  or  a  constitutional  amendment  to  which  they 
object,   through  the  exercise  of  the  other  they  may  not  merely  bring 
desired  measures  to  the  attention  of  the  legislature;  they  may  secure 
the  enactment  of  such  measures  despite  the  indifference  or  opposition 
of  the  legislative  body.    In  current  political  discussion,  and  in  their 
actual  operation,  the  two  are  likely  to  be  closely  associated.    They  are, 
however,  quite  distinct,  as  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  earliest 
adoptions  of  the  initiative  in  Switzerland  occurred  in  cantons  (Vaud  in 
1845  and  Aargau  in  1852)  in  which  as  yet  the  referendum  did  not  exist. 
Among  the  Swiss  cantons  the  right  of  popular  legislative  initiative  is 
now  all  but  universal.    It  has  been  established  in  all  of  the  cantons 
save  Freiburg,  Lucerne,  and  Valais.     As  a  rule,  measures  may  be 
proposed  by  the  same  proportion  of  voters  as  is  competent  to  overthrow 
a  measure  referred  from  the  legislature;  and  any  measure  proposed  by  the 
requisite  number  of  voters  must  be  taken  under  consideration  by  the 
legislature  within  a  specified  period.    If  the  legislature  desires  to  prepare 
a  counter-project  to  be  submitted  to  the  voters  along  with  the  popularly 
initiated  proposition,  it  may  do  so.    But  the  original  proposal  must,  in 
any  case,  go  before  the  people,  accompanied  by  the  legislature's  opinion 
upon  it;  and  their  verdict  is  decisive.1 

IV.  THE  CANTONAL  EXECUTIVE  AND  JUDICIARY 

464.  The  Council  of  State. — Executive  authority  within  the  canton 
is  vested  regularly  in  an  administrative  council,  variously  designated 
as  a  Regierungsrath,  a  Standeskommission,  or  a  Conseil  d'Etat.    The 
Council  of  State  (employing  this  phrase  to  designate  each  body  of  the 
kind,  however  named)  consists  of  from  five  to  thirteen  members,  serving 
for  from  one  to  five  years.   In  more  than  half  of  the  cantons  the  members 
are  chosen  by  popular  vote;  in  the  rest,  they  are  elected  by  the  Greater 
Council,  or  legislature.    By  the  Council  of  State  (in  a  few  instances 
by  the  legislature)  is  chosen  a  chairman,  or  president,  known  in  the 
German  cantons  as  the  Landammann.2    The  office  of  Landammann  is 

(London,  1898).  Of  value  also  are  Stiissi,  Referendum  und  Initiative  in  den  Scheiz- 
erkantonen  (Zurich,  1894),  and  J.  Signorel,  Etude  de  legislation  compared  sur 
le  referendum  legislatif  (Paris,  1896).  Mention  may  be  made  of  J.  Delpech, 
Quelques  observations  a  propos  du  referendum  et  des  Landesgemeinde  suisse,  in 
Revue  du  Droit  Public,  April- June,  1906. 

*A.  Keller,  Das  Volksinitiativrecht  nach  den  schweizerischen  Kantonsverfas- 
sungen  (Zurich,  1889). 

2  In  the  Landesgemeinde  cantons  the  Landammann  is  elected  by  the  primary 
assembly. 


422  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

one  of  dignity  and  honor,  at  least  locally,  but  it  is  not  one  of  large 
authority.  The  Landammann  is  the  chief  spokesman  of  the  canton, 
but  legally  his  status  is  scarcely  superior  to  that  of  his  fellow  councillors. 
The  functions  of  the  Council  embrace  the  execution  of  the  laws,  the 
preservation  of  order,  the  drawing  up  of  fiscal  statements,  the  drafting 
of  proposed  legislation,  the  rendering  of  decisions  in  cases  on  appeal, 
and,  in  general,  the  safeguarding  of  the  interests  of  the  canton.  For 
purposes  of  convenience  the  functions  of  the  Council  are  divided  among 
departments,  to  each  of  which  one  of  the  councillors  is  assigned.  All 
acts,  however,  are  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Council  as  a  whole. 
In  those  cantons  which  have  fullfledged  legislative  chambers  councillors 
may  attend  sessions  and  speak,  though  as  a  rule  they  may  not  vote. 

465.  Local   Administration. — For    purposes    of    administration    all 
cai\ton^,  save  a  few  of  the  smaller  ones,  are  divided  into  districts  (187 
in  the  aggregate),  at  the  head  of  each  of  which  is  placed  a  prefect  or 
Bezirksammann.    This  official,  whether  chosen  by  the  Council  of  State, 
by  the  Greater  Council,  or  even  by  the  people  of  the  district,  is  in  every 
sense  a  representative  of  the  cantonal  government.    Sometimes  he  is 
assisted  by  a  Bezirksrath,  or  district  council;  frequently  he  is  not.    In 
Schwyz  there  is  a  Bezirksgemeinde,  or  popular  assembly,  in  each  of  the 
six  districts,  but  this  is  wholly  exceptional. 

Each  canton  is  built  up  of  communes,  or  Gemeinden,  and  these 
communes,  3,164  in  number,  comprise  the  most  deeply  rooted  political 
units  of  the  country.  Legally,  each  is  composed  of  all  male  Swiss 
citizens  over  twenty  years  of  age  resident  within  the  communal  bounds 
during  a  period  of  at  least  three  months.  The  meeting  of  these  persons 
is  known  as  the  Gemeindeversammlung,  or  the  assemblee  generate.  By 
it  are  chosen  an  executive  council  (the  Gemeinderath  or  conseil  municipal) 
and  a  mayor  (Gemeindeprasident).  A  principle  adhered  to  by  the 
cantonal  governments  generally  is  that  in  the  work  of  local  adminis- 
tration the  largest  possible  use  shall  be  made  of  the  mayors  of  towns, 
the  headmen  of  villages,  and  other  minor  local  dignitaries.1 

466.  Justice. — Each  canton  has  a  judicial  system  which  is  essentially 
complete  within  itself.   Judges  are  elected  by  the  people.   The  hierarchy 
of  civil  tribunals — the  Vermittler,  or  justice  of  the  peace,  the  Bezirks- 
gericht,  or  district  court,  and  the  Kantonsgericht — is  paralleled  by  a 
hierarchy  of  courts  for  the  trial  of  criminal  cases,  a  special  committee 
or  chamber  of  the  Kantonsgericht  serving  as  the  criminal  court  of  last 
resort.    Only  in  few  and  wholly  exceptional  instances  may  appeal  be 
carried  from  a  cantonal  to  a  federal  tribunal. 

1  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap.  10;  Adams  and  Cunningham,  The 
Swiss  Confederation,  Chap.  8;  Lloyd,  A  Sovereign  People,  Chap.  3. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 
THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 

I.  THE  EXECUTIVE 

467.  The  Federal  Council:  the  President. — At  the  framing  of  the 
Swiss  constitution,  as  at  that  of  the  American,  there  arose  the  question 
of  a  single  or  a  plural  executive.  In  the  United  States  the  disadvantages 
assumed  to  be  inherent  in  an  executive  which  should  consist  of  a  number 
of  persons  who  were  neither  individually  responsible  nor  likely  to  be 
altogether  harmonious  determined  a  decision  in  favor  of  a  single  presi- 
dent. In  Switzerland,  on  the  other  hand,  the  cantonal  tradition  of  a  (T 
collegiate  executive,  combined  with  an  exaggerated  fear  of  the  concen- 
tration of  power,  determined  resort  to  the  other  alternative.  There 
is  a  president  of  the  Swiss  Confederation.  But,  as  will  appear,  his 
status  is  altogether  different  from  that  of  the  President  of  tie  United 
States,  and  likewise  from  that  of  the  President  of  France.  The  Swiss 
executive  consists  rather  of  a  Bundesrath,  or  Federal  Council,  in  which 
the  President  is  little  more  than  chairman. 

"The  supreme  directive  and  executive  authority  of  the  Confederation," 
says  the  constitution, "  shall  be  exercised  by  a  Federal  Council,  composed 
of  seven  members." 1  The  members  of  the  Federal  Council  are  elected  by 
the  Federal  Assembly,  i.  e.,  the  National  Council  and  the  Council  of  the 
States  in  joint  session,  from  among  all  citizens  eligible  to  the  National 
Council,  or  popular  legislative  body,  with  the  condition  simply  that 
not  more  than  one  member  may  be  chosen  from  the  same  canton. 
Nominally,  the  term  of  members  is  three  years;  practically,  it  is  variable, 
for  whenever  the  National  Council  is  dissolved  prior  to  the  expiration 
of  its  triennial  period  the  new  Assembly  proceeds  forthwith  to  choose 
a  new  Federal  Council.  Two  officials,  designated  respectively  as 
President  of  the  Confederation  and  Vice-President  of  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil, are  elected  annually  by  the  Assembly  from  among  the  seven  mem- 
bers of  the  Council.  A  retiring  president  may  not  be  elected  president 
or  vice-president  for  the  succeeding  year;  nor  may  any  member  occupy 
the  vice-presidency  during  two  consecutive  years.  By  custom  the 
1  Art.  95,  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  281. 
423 


424  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

vice-president  regularly  succeeds  to  the  presidency.  The  function  of 
the  President,  as  such,  is  simply  that  of  presiding  over  the  deliberations 
of  the  Council.  He  has  no  more  power  than  any  one  of  his  six  colleagues. 
Like  each  of  them,  he  assumes  personal  direction  of  some  one  of  the 
principal  executive  departments.1  The  only  peculiarity  of  his  status 
is  that  he  performs  the  ceremonial  duties  connected  with  the  titular 
headship  of  the  state  and  draws  a  salary  of  13,500  francs  instead  of  the 
12,000  drawn  by  each  of  the  other  councillors.  He  is  in  no  sense  a 
"chief  executive." 

468.  The  Executive  Departments. — The   business   of   the   Council 
is  divided  among  the  seven  departments  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Interior, 
Justice  and  Police,  Military  Affairs,  Imposts  and  Finance,  Posts  and 
Railways,  and  Commerce,  Industry,  and  Agriculture.    Each  depart- 
ment is  presided  over  by  a  member  of  the  Council,  and  to  each  is 
assigned  from  time  to  time,  by  the  President,  such  subjects  for  considera- 
tion as  properly  fall  within  its  domain.    It  is  stipulated  by  the  constitu- 
tion, however,  that  this  distribution  shall  be  made  for  the  purpose 
only  of  facilitating  the  examination  and  despatch  of  business.    All 
decisions  are  required  to  emanate  from  the  Council  as  a  body.2   Ordi- 
narily a  councillor  remains  at  the  head  of  a  department  through  a  con- 
siderable number  of  years,3  and  it  may  be  added  that,  by  reason  of  an 
increase  in  the  aggregate  volume  of  governmental  business,  the  depart- 
mental head  enjoys  to-day  a  larger  measure  of  independence  than 
formerly.    A  quorum  of  the  Council  consists  of  four- members,  and  no 
member  may  absent  himself  from  a  session  witnout  excuse.    Except 
in  elections,  voting  is  viva  wee,  and  an  abstract  of  proceedings  is  pub- 
lished regularly  in  the  official  gazette  of  the  Republic. 

469.  Actual  Character  of  the  Council.  The  Federal  Council,  although 
at  certain  points  resembling  a  cabinet,  is  not  a  cabinet,  and  no  such 
thing  as  cabinet  government,  or  a  parliamentary  system,  can  be  said 
to  exist  uTSwitzerland.    The  Council  does,  it  is  true,  prepare  measures 
and  lay  them  before  the  Assembly.    Its^  members  even  appear  on  the 
floor  of  the  two  chambers  and  defend  these  measures.    But  the  coun- 
cillors are  not,  and  may  not  be,  members  of  the  Assembly;  they  do  not, 
of  necessity,  represent  a  common  political  party,  faith,  or  programme, 
they  are  not  necessarily  agreed  among  themselves  upon  the  merits  or 

1  No  longer,  as  prior  to  1888,  necessarily  that  of  foreign  affairs. 

2  Art.  103.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  284.    For  a  synopsis  of  the  law  of 
July  8,  1887,  whereby  an  apportionment  of  functions  was  made  among  the  various 
departments  see  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  239-246. 

1  Members  of  the  Council  are  re-elected,  almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  as  long  as 
they  are  willing  to  serve.  Between  1848  and  1893  the  average  period  of  service 
exceeded  ten  years.  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  203. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  425 

demerits  of  a  particular  legislative  proposal;  and  if  overruled  by  a 
majority  of  the  Assembly  they  do  not  so  much  as  think  of  retiring  from 
office,  for  each  member  has  been  elected  by  a  separate  ballot  for  a  fixed 
term.1  In  other  words,  the  Council  is  essentially  what  Swiss  writers 
have  themselves  denominated  it,  i.  e.,  arj^executive  committee  of  the 
Federal  Assembly.  It  possesses  a  large  measure  of  solidarity,  but  only 
for  the  purposes  of  routine  business.  Quite  superior  to  it  in  every 
way — so  much  so  that  even  its  most  ordinary  administrative  measures 
may  be  set  aside — is  the  Assembly,  as  against  which  the  Council 
possesses  not  a  shred  of  constitutional  prerogative.  In  the-^isembly 
is  vested  ultimate  authority,  and  in  the  event  of  a  clash  of  policies 
what  the  Assembly  orders  the  Council  performs.  Between  the  executive 
and  the  legislative  branches  of  the  government  the  relation  is  quite 
as  close  as  it  is  in  a  parliamentary  system,  but  the  relation  is  of  a  totally 
different  sort.2 

470.  The  Council's  Functions. — The  functions  of  the  Council  are 
at  the  same  time  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial.  On  the  executive 
side  it  is  the  duty  of  the  body  to'^execute  ihelaws  and  resolutions  of 
the  Confederation  and  the  judgments  of  the  Federal  Court";  to  watch 
over  the  external  interests  of  the  Confederation  and  to  conduct  foreign 
relations;  to  safeguard  the  welfare,  external  and  internal,  of  the  state; 
to  make  such  appointments  as  are  not  intrusted  to  any  other  agency; 
to  administer  the  finances  of  the  Confederation,  introduce  the  budget, 
and  submit  accounts  of  receipts  and  expenses;  to  supervise  the  con- 
duct of  all  officers  and  employees  of  the  Confederation;  to  enforce  the 
observance  of  the  federal  constitution  and  the  guaranty  of  the  can- 
tonal constitutions;  and  to  manage  the  federal  military  establishment. 
In  respect  to  legislation  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  Council  to  introduce 
bills  or  resolutions  into  the  Federal  Assembly  and  to  give  its  opinion 
upon  the  proposals  submitted  to  it  by  the  chambers  or  by  the  cantons; 
also  to  submit  to  the  Assembly  at  each  regular  session  an  account  of 
its  own  administration,  together  with  a  report  upon  the  internal  con- 
ditions and  the  foreign  relations  of  the  state.3  The*  Council  possesses 
no  veto  upon  the  Assembly's  measures.  The  judicial  functions  of  the 
Council  are  such  as  arise  from  the  fact  that  there  are  in  Switzerland 

1  The  resignation,  in  1891,  of  M.  Weld,  a  member  of  the  Council  since  1867,  by 
reason  of  the  fact  that  the  people  rejected  his  project  for  the  governmental  purchase 
of  railway  shares  occasioned  general  consternation. 

5  For  interesting  observations  upon  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the 
Swiss  system  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  204-208.  See  also  Vincent, 
Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap.  16;  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  188-203. 

3  Art.  102.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  282-284;  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres, 
II.,  218-225. 


426  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

no  administrative  courts,  so  that  the  varied  kinds  of  administrative 
cases  which  have  been  withheld  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal 
Tribunal  are  in  practice  dealt  with  directly  by  the  Federal  Council, 
with  appeal,  as  a  rule,  to  the  Assembly.1 

n.  LEGISLATION:  THE  FEDERAL  ASSEMBLY 

With  specific  reservation  of  the  sovereign  rights  of  the  people  and  of 
the  cantons,  the  constitution  vests  the  exercise  of  the  supreme  author- 
ity of  the  Confederation  in  the  Bundesversammlung,  or  Federal 
Assembly.  Unlike  the  cantonal  legislatures,  the  Federal  Assembly 
consists  of  two  houses — a  Nationalrath,  or  National  Council,  and  a 
Standerath,  or  Council  of  the  States.2  The  one  comprises  essentially 
a  house  of  representatives;  the  other,  a  senate.  The  adoption,  in  the 
constitution  of  1848,  of  the  hitherto  untried  bicameral  principle  came 
about  as  a  compromise  between  conflicting  demands  of  the  same  sort 
that  were  voiced  in  the  Philadelphia  convention  of  1787 — the  demand, 
that  is,  of  the  smaller  federated  units  for  an  equality  of  political  power 
and  that  of  the  larger  ones  for  a  proportioning  of  such  power  to  popula- 
tion. 

471.  The  National  Council:  Composition  and  Organization. — The 
National  Council  is  composed  of  deputies  chosen  at  a  general  election, 
for  a  term  of  three  years,  by  direct  manhood  suffrage.  The  constitu- 
tion stipulates  that  there  shall  be  one  representative  for  every  20,000 
inhabitants,  or  major  fraction  thereof,  and  a  reapportionment  is 
made  consequent  upon  each  decennial  census.  The  electoral  districts 
are  so  laid  out  that  no  one  comprises  portions  of  different  cantons;  but 
they  are  of  varying  sizes  and  are  entitled  to  unequal  numbers  of 
representatives,  according  to  their  population.  Within  the  district 
all  representatives,  if  there  are  more  than  one,  are  chosen  on  a  general 
ticket,  and  the  individual  elector  has  a  right  to 'vote  for  a  number  of 
candidates  equal  to  the  number  of  seats  to  be  filled.  The  quota  of 
representatives  falling  to  the  various  cantons  under  this  arrangement 
varies  from  one  in  Uri  and  in  Zug  to  twenty-two  in  Zurich  and  twenty- 
nine  in  Bern.  Every  canton  and  each  of  the  six  half-cantons  is  en- 
titled to  at  least  one  deputy.  The  total  number  in  191 1  was  189.  The 

1  Art.  113.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  286.    The  nature  and  functions 
of  the  Swiss  executive  are  treated  briefly  in  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland, 
Chap.  17,  and  Adams  and  Cunningham,  The  Swiss  Confederation,  Chap.  4.    An 
excellent  account  is  that  in  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  II.,  182-246.    Of  value  are 
Blumer  and  Morel,  Handbuch  des  schweizerischen  Bundesstaatsrechts,  III.,  34-92, 
and  Dubs,  Le  droit  public  de  la  confederation  suisse,  II.,  77-105. 

2  In  French,  the  Conseil  National  and  the  Conseil  des  fitats. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  427 

electorate  consists  of  all  male  Swiss  who  have  attained  their  twentieth 
year  and  who  are  in  possession  of  the  franchise  within  their  respective 
cantons.  The  establishment  of  electoral  districts,  as  well  as  the  regula- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  federal  elections,  has  been  accomplished,  under 
provision  of  the  constitution,  by  federal  statute.  Voting  is  in  all 
cases  by  secret  ballot,  and  elections  take  place  always  on  the  same  day 
(the  last  Sunday  in  October)  throughout  the  entire  country.  An  abso- 
lute majority  of  the  votes  cast  is  necessary  for  election,  save  that, 
following  twcTuhsuccessful  attempts  to  procure  such  a  majority  within 
a  district,  at  the  third  trial  a  simple  plurality  is  sufficient.  Except  that 
no  member  of  the  clergy  may  be  chosen,  every  citizen  in  possession 
of  the  federal  franchise  is  eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  National  Council.1 
Members  receive  a,  small  salary,  which  is  proportioned  to  days  of  ac- 
tual attendance  and  paid  out  of  the  federal  treasury. 

At  each  regular  or  extraordinary  session  the  National  Council 
chooses  from  among  its  members  a  president,  a  vice-president,  and 
four  tellers,  under  the  provision,  however,  that  a  member  who  during 
a  regular  session  has  held  the  office  of  president  is  ineligible  either  as 
president  or  vice-president  at  the  ensuing  regular  session,  and  that 
the  same  member  may  not  be  vice-president  during  two  consecutive 
regular  sessions.  In  all  elections  within  the  National  Council  the 
president  participates  as  any  other  member;  in  legislative  matters  he 
possesses  a  vote  only  in  the  event  of  a  tie.  The  president,  vice-presi- 
dent, and  tellers  together  comprise  the  "bureau"  of  the  Council,  by 
which  most  of  the  committees  are  nominated,  votes  are  counted,  and 
routine  business  is  transacted.2 

472.  The  Council  of  the  States:  Composition  and  Status. —  Super- 
ficially, the  Swiss  Council  of  the  States  resembles  the  American  Senate, 
and  it  is  commonly  understood  that  the  framers  of  the  constitution  of 
1848  created  the  institution  not  merely  by  reason  of  an  inevitable 
tendency  to  perpetuate  in  some  measure  the  purely  federal  features  of 
the  old  Diet,  but  also  in  consequence  of  a  deliberate  purpose  to  set 
up  a  legislative  body  which  should  fulfill  essentially  those  comple- 
mentary and  restraining  functions  which  in  the  United  States  were 
assigned  to  the  upper  chamber.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  Swiss 
Council  has  little  in  common  with  its  American  counterpart.  It  con- 
sists of  forty-four  members,  two  chosen  within  each  canton;  and  to 
this  extent  it  indeed  resembles  the  Senate,  llie  manner  of  election 
and  the  qualifications  of  members,  however,  as  well  as  tenure  of  office 
and  the  arrangements  made  for  remuneration,  are  not  regulated,  as 

1  This  denial  of  clerical  eligibility  was  inspired  by  fear  of  Catholic  influences. 
'Arts.  72-79.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  277-278. 


428  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

are  similar  matters  in  the  United  States,  by  the  constitution,  or  by 
federal  authority,  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  left  entirely  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  individual  cantons.  The  consequence  is  a  total  lack  of 
uniformity  in  these  highly  important  matters.  In  some  cantons  mem- 
bers are  elected  by  popular  vote;  in  others,  by  the  legislative  assembly. 
In  some  they  are  chosen  for  one  year;  in  others,  for  two;  in  still  others, 
for  three.  The  consequence  is  that  the  Council  is  commonly  lacking  in 
compactness  and  morale.  More  serious  still  is  the  fact  that  the  func- 
tions of  the  upper  chamber  are  in  all  respects  identical  with  those  of 
the  lower.  The  American  Senate  has  power  and  character  of  its  own, 
quite  apart  from  that  of  the  House  of  Representatives;  the  Swiss 
Council  has  nothing  of  the  kind.  Its  organization,  even,  is  an  almost 
exact  replica  of  that  of  the  lower  chamber.1  In  the  earlier  days  of  the 
present  constitutional  system  the  Council  enjoyed  high  prestige  and 
influence;  but  by  reason  of  the  conditions  that  have  been  described  the 
body  in  time  fell  into  decline.  Able  and  ambitious  statesmen  have 
preferred  usually  to  be  identified  with  the  lower  house.  The  upper 
chamber  possesses  large  powers — powers  nominally  co-ordinate  with 
those  of  the  lower  one — and  it  has  acted  not  infrequently  with  suffi- 
cient independence  to  defeat  measures  advocated  by  the  National  Coun- 
cil. But,  without  being  the  feeble  upper  chamber  that  is  commonly 
associated  with  a  parliamentary  system  of  government,  it  is  yet  es- 
sentially lacking  in  the  initiative  and  independence  of  a  true  senate.2 
473.  Powers  of  the  National  Assembly. —  In  the  constitution  it  is 
stipulated  that  the  National  Council  and  the  Council  of  the  States 
shall  have  the  right  to  consider  all  subjects  placed  within  the  compe- 
tence of  the  Confederation  and  not  assigned  to  any  other  federal 
authority.3  The  range  of  this  competence  is  enormous.  There  are, 
in  the  first  place,  certain  functions  which  the  two  houses  perform  while 
sitting  jointly  under  the  direction  of  the  president  of  the  National 
Council.  These  are  electoral  and  judicial  in  character  and  comprise 
(i)  the  election  of  the  Federal  Council,  or  executive  committee  of  the 
Confederation,  the  federal  judges,  the  chancellor,4  and  the  generals 

1  "Neither  the  president  nor  the  vice-president  may  be  ehosen  at  any  session 
from  the  canton  from  which  the  president  for  the  preceding  session  was  chosen; 
and  the  vice-presidency  may  not  be  held  during  two  successive  regular  sessions  by 
representatives  of  the  same  canton."    Art.  82. 

2  Arts.  80-83.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  278. 

3  Art.  84.    Ibid.,  II.,  278. 

4  The   principal  duty  of  the  chancellor  is  the  keeping  of  the  minutes  of  the 
National   Council.       A  vice-chancellor,  appointed  by  the  Federal  Council,  per- 
forms a  similar  function  in  the  Council  of  States,  under  responsibility  to  the  chan- 
cellor. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  429 

of  the  federal  army;  (2)  the  granting  of  pardons;  and  (3)  the  adjust- 
ment of  jurisdictional  conflicts  between  different  branches  of  the 
federal  governmental  system. 

Much  more  extensive  are  the  powers  which  the  houses,  sitting 
separately,  exercise  concurrently.  The  constitution  requires  that 
the  councils  be  assembled  at  least  once  annually.  In  practice,  they 
meet  in  June  and  December  of  each  year,  regular  sessions  extending 
as  a  rule  through  four  or  five  weeks.  At  the  request  of  either  one-fourth 
of  the  members  of  the  National  Councillor  of  five  cantons  an  extraordi- 
nary session  must  be  held,  and  there  is  a  probability  of  one  such  ses- 
sion each  year,  ordinarily  in  March.  The  powers  assigned  the  cham- 
bers to  be  exercised  in  their  concurrent  capacities  may  be  classified 
variously.  The  more  important  are:  (i)  the  enactment  of  laws  and 
ordinances  upon  the  organization  and  election  of  federal  authorities 
and  upon  all  subjects  which  by  the  constitution  are  placed  within 
the  federal  competence;  (2)  the  conduct  of  foreign  relations,  particu- 
larly the  concluding  of  treaties  and  alliances  with  foreign  powers, 
the  supervision  of  conventions  entered  into  by  the  cantons  (in  the 
event  that  the  Federal  Council,  or  any  canton,  protests  against  such 
cantonal  arrangements),  the  declaring  of  war  and  the  concluding  of 
peace,  and  the  taking  of  measures  for  the  safety,  independence,  and 
neutrality  of  the  Confederation;  (3)  the  control  of  the  federal  army; 
Q.)  the  adoption  of  the  annual  budget,  the  authorizing  of  federal 
loans,  and  the  auditing  of  public  accounts;  (5)  the  taking  of  measures 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  federal  constitution,  for 
the  carrying  out  of  the  guaranty  of  the  cantonal  constitutions,  for 
the  fulfillment  of  federal  obligations,  and  for  the  supervision  of  the 
federal  administration  and  of  the  federal  courts;  and  (6)  the  revision 
of  the  federal  constitution.1  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  powers 
exercised  by  the  chambers  are  principally  legislative,  but  also  in  no 
small  degree  executive  and  judicial;  that,  as  has  already  been  em- 
phasized, the  two  councils  comprise  the  real  directive  agency  of  the 
Confederation. 

474.  The  Assembly's  Procedure. — Federal  laws,  decrees,  and 
resolutions  are  passed  only  by  agreement  of  the  two  councils.  Any 
measure  may  originate  in  either  house  and  may  be  introduced  by  any 
member.  There  are  committees  upon  various  subjects,  but  bills  are 
referred  to  them  only  by  special  vote.  Committee  members  are  chosen 
by  the  chamber  directly  or  by  the  chamber's  "bureau,"  as  the  cham- 
ber itself  may  determine.  In  each  house  a  majority  constitutes  a 
quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business,  and  measures  are  passed  by 
1  Art.  85,  §§  1-14.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  278-279. 


43°  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

a  simple  majority.  Sittings,  as  a  rule,  are  public.  It  is  expressly 
forbidden  that  members  shall  receive  from  their  constituents,  or 
from  the  cantonal  governments,  instructions  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  they  shall  vote.1 

III.  LEGISLATION:  THE  REFERENDUM  AND  THE  INITIATIVE 

From  the  domain  of  cantonal  legislative  procedure  there  has  been 
carried  over  into  federal  law-making  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  referendum.  The  federal  referendum  exists  to-day  in  two  forms, 
i.  e.,  the  optional  and  the  obligatory.  The  one  appeared  for  the  first 
time  in  the  revised  constitution  of  1874  and  is  applicable  exclusively 
to  projects  of  ordinary  legislation.  The  other  was  established  by  the 
constitution  of  1848  and  is  applicable  solely  to.  proposed  amendments 
of  that  instrument. 

476.  The  Optional  Referendum:  Laws  and  Resolutions. — After 
a  law  which  has  been  enacted  by  the  Federal  Assembly  has  been 
published  it  enters  regularly  upon  a  probationary  period,  of  ninety 
days  during  which,  under  stipulated  conditions,^  may  l5e  referred 
directly  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection.  The  only  excep- 
tions are  afforded  by  those  measures  which,  by  declaration  of  the 
councils,  are  of  a  private  rather  than  a  general  character,  and  those 
which  are  "urgent."  Such  acts  take  effect  at  once.  But  all  others 
are  suspended  until  there  shall  have  been  adequate  opportunity  for 
the  carrying  through  of  a  referendum.  At  any  time  within  the  ninety- 
day  period  a  referendum  may  be  demanded,  either  by  the  people 
directly  or  by  the  cantonal  governments.  Petitions  signed  by  as 
many  as  ^0,000  voters,  or  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of  as  many  as 
eight  cantons,  render  it  obligatory  upon  the  Federal  Council  to  ar- 
range for  the  submission  of  a  measure  to  a  referendum  within  four 
weeks  after  the  announcement  of  the  demand  has  been  made.  The 
method  of  the  referendum  is  carefully  prescribed  by  federal  legislation. 
Every  citizen  in  possession  of  unimpaired  civil  rights  is  entitled  to 
vote,  and  the  voting  takes  place  under  the  supervision  of  the  authori- 
ties of  the  commune  and  of  the  canton.  If  in  a  majority  of  the  can- 
tons a  preponderance  of  votes  is  cast  in  favor  of  the  measure  in  hand, 
the  Federal  Council  proclaims  the  fact  and  the  measure  goes  at 
once  into  operation.  An  adverse  majority,  on  the  other  hand,  renders 
the  measure  null.  In  the  event  that  no  referendum  is  demanded, 
the  measure,  of  course,  goes  automatically  into  effeqt  at  the  expira- 

1  For  a  brief  account  of  the  procedure  of  the  chambers  see  Vincent,  Government 
in  Switzerland,  181-187. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  431 

tion  of  the  ninety-day  period.  Since  its  introduction  into  the  federal 
constitution  the  principle  of  the  legislative  referendum  has  beer 
brought  to  bear  upon  a  not  inconsiderable  number  of  legislative 
projects.  The  proportion,  indeed,  of  laws  falling  within  the  range. 
of  the  system  which  have  been  subjected  to  the  popular  vote,  while 
varying  widely  from  time  to  time,  has  been  not  far  from  ten  per  cent; 
and  of  the  measures  actually  voted  upon  several  of  importance  have 
been  rejected.  In  all  instances  the  demand  has  arisen  directly  from 
citizen^petitioners,  not  from  the  cantonal  governments.1 

476.  The  Obligatory  Referendum:  Constitutional  Amendments. — 
In  its  application  to  laws  and  resolutions  the  referendum  is  optional; 
in  application  to  constitutional  amendments  it  is  obligatory.  Revi- 
sion of  the  Swiss  constitution  may  be  accomplished  at  any  time,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  and  in  a  variety  of  modes.  In  the  event  that  the 
legislative  councils  are  able  to  agree  upon  a  scheme  of  revision  they 
vote  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  amendment  precisely  as  if  it  were 
an  ordinary  statute,  and  it  is  thereupon  submitted  to  the  people  for 
acceptance  or  rejection.  If,  however,  the  two  houses  disagree  upon 
the  question  of  a  total  revision,  or  if  as  many  as  50,000  voters  make 
demand  for  a  total  revision,  there  must  be  put  to  the  people  the  pre- 
liminary question  as  to  whether  there  shall  be  a  revision  at  all.  If 
the  will  of  the  majority  is  affirmative,  new  legislative  councils  must  be 
elected,  and  to  them  falls  the  obligation  of  executing  the  popular 
mandate. 

When  the  question  is  one  of  but  partial  revision  the  procedure  is 
somewhat  different.  Partial  revision  may  be  instituted  either  by  the 
councils  or  by  petition  of  50,000  voters.  When  a  popular  petition  is 
presented  there  are  four  possible  courses  of  action:  (i)  if  the  project 
is  presented  in  general  terms  and  the  councils  are  in  agreement  upon 
it,  they  reduce  the  proposal  to  specific  form  and  submit  it  to  the 

*On  the  operation  of  the  optional  referendum  see  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  II.,  252-261.  "From  1874  till  1908  the  Federal  Assembly  passed  261  bills 
and  resolutions  which  could  constitutionally  be  subjected  to  the  referendum. 
Thirty  of  these  261  were  actually  voted  on  by  the  people,  who  ratified  eleven  and 
rejected  nineteen  of  them.  The  effect  of  the  federal  optional  legislative  referendum 
was,  then,  to  hold  up  a  little  more  than  seven  per  cent  of  the  statutory  output  of 
the  Federal  Assembly."  W.  E.  Rappard,  in  American  Political  Science  Review, 
Aug.,  1912,  357.  On  the  most  recent  exercise  of  the  federal  referendum  (the  adop- 
tion, February  4,  1912,  of  a  national  Accident  and  Sickness  Insurance  bill)  see 
M.  Turmann,  Le  referendum  suisse  du  4  f6vrier — la  loi  f6d£rale  sur  1'assurance- 
maladie  et  1'assurance  accident,  in  Le  Correspondant,  Feb.  10, 1912.  This  particu- 
lar referendum  was  called  for  by  75,000  voters.  The  measure  submitted  was 
approved  by  a  vote  of  287,566  to  241416,  on  a  poll  of  63.04  per  cent  of  the  registered 
electorate. 


432  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

people;  (2)  if  the  councils  are  not  in  agreement  upon  the  project  they 
put  to  the  people  the  preliminary  question  of  whether  an  amendment 
of  the  general  type  proposed  is  desirable,  and  if  the  vote  is  affirmative 
they  proceed  with  the  revision;  (3)  if  the  petition  is  presented  in  a 
form  that  is  specific  and  final  and  the  councils  are  in  agreement  upon 
it,  the  project  is  submitted  forthwith  to  the  people;  and  (4)  if  the 
councils  are  not  in  agreement  upon  a  specific  project  so  advanced, 
they  may  prepare  a  project  of  their  own,  or  recommend  the  rejection 
of  the  proposed  amendment,  and  they  may  submit  their  counter- 
project  or  their  recommendation  at  the  same  time  that  the  initiative 
petition  is  presented  to  the  people.1  In  no  case  may  an  amendment  be 
put  into  effect  until  it  has  received  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  those 
voting  thereon  in  a  majority  of  the  cantons.  Of  seventeen  constitu- 
tional amendments  submitted  by  the  Federal  Assembly  between  1874 
and  1908  twelve  were  ratified  and  five  were  rejected. 

477.  The  Popular  Initiative. — The  right  of  popular  initiative  in 
the  revision  of  the  constitution  was  established  by  an  amendment  of 
July  5,  1891,  through  the  united  efforts  of  all  the  anti-Radical  parties 
and  groups.  The  purpose  underlying  the  amendment  was  to  break 
the  monopoly  long  enjoyed  by  the  Radicals  by  placing  within  the 
hands  of  any  fifty  thousand  citizens  the  power  to  compel  the  federal 
government  to  take  under  consideration  proposed  modifications  of 
the  constitution,  to  prepare  projects  relating  to  them,  and  to  submit 
these  projects  to  the  ultimate  decision  of  the  people.  When  the  sys- 
tem was  established  many  persons  seriously  feared  that  the  way  had 
been  thrown  open  for  frequent,  needless,  and  revolutionary  change, 
by  which  the  stability  of  the  state  would  be  impaired.  Such  appre- 
hension, however,  has  been  proved  groundless.  During  a  score  of 
years  only  nine  popularly-initiated  amendments  have  been  voted 
upon,  and  only  three  have  been  incorporated  in  the  fundamental  law. 
One  of  the  three,  adopted  in  1893,  prohibited  the  Jewish  method  of 
slaughtering  animals,  and  was  purely  a  product  of  the  antisemitic 
movement.  The  other  two  were  adopted  in  1908.  One  authorized 
for  the  first  time  legislation  by  the  federal  authorities  upon  subjects 
relating  to  the  trades  and  professions;  the  other  prohibited  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  of  absinthe.  A  number  of  other  more  or  less  sweeping 
amendments,  it  is  true,  have  been  proposed,  but  all  alike  have  failed 
of  adoption.  Thus,  in  1894,  perished  a  socialistic  scheme  whereby  the 
state  was  to  obligate  itself  to  provide  employment  for  every  able- 
bodied  man,  and  in  the  same  year,  a  project  to  pay  over  to  the  cantons 
a  bonus  of  two  francs  per  capita  from  the  rapidly  increasing  returns 
1  Arts.  118-123.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  287-289. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  433 

of  the  customs  duties.1  Similarly,  in  1900,  failed  two  interesting  pro- 
jected reforms  relating  to  the  federal  electoral  system.  One  of  these 
provided  for  the  introduction,  in  the  various  cantons,  of  the  principle 
of  proportional  representation  in  the  election  of  members  of  the  Na- 
tional Council.  The  other  provided  for  the  election  of  the  members 
of  the  Federal  Council,  not,  as  at  present,  by  the  General  Assembly, 
but  by  direct  popular  vote,  the  whole  mass  of  electors  voting,  not  by 
cantons,  but  as  one  national  constituency.  In  June,  1900,  both  of 
these  electoral  proposals  were  rejected  by  the  legislative  chambers, 
and  in  the  ensuing  November  the  people  ratified  the  rejection.  In 
1903,  there  was  defeated  in  the  same  way  a  proposal  to  base  repre- 
sentation hi  the  National  Council,  not  upon  the  total  population  of 
the  country,  but  upon  the  Swiss  population  alone.  In  1909-10  the 
proportional  representation  project  was  revived,  but  with  a  negative 
result.2 

Among  reforms  that  have  been  much  discussed  in  recent  years 
has  been  the  extension  of  the  initiative  and  of  the  obligatory  referen- 
dum to  all  federal  legislation.  Both  apply  as  yet  only  to  constitutional 
amendments.  In  1906  the  Federal  Council  went  so  far  as  to  submit 
to  the  legislative  councils  a  proposal  intended  to  meet  the  first  of  these 
ends.  The  purport  of  the  proposal  was  that  fifty  thousand  voters, 

1  C.  Borgeaud,  Le  p!6biscite  du  4  novembre  1894,  in  Revue  du  Droit  Public, 
Nov.-Dec.,  1894.    The  adverse  votes  were  decisive,  i.  e.,  308,289  to  75,880  and 
347,401  to  145*362  respectively. 

2  The  introduction  of  proportional  representation  in  Switzerland  is  advocated 
especially  by  the  Socialists  and  the  Clericals,  to  whom  principally  would  accrue  the 
benefits  of  the  system.    The  Liberals  are  favorable  to  the  principle,  though  they 
prefer  to  postpone  the  issue.   The  Radicals  are  solidly  opposed.    At  the  referendum 
of  1900  the  project  was  rejected  by  n>£  to  io>£  cantons,  and  by  a  popular  majority 
of  75,000;  at  that  of  October  23,1910,  it  was  approved  by  12  to  10  cantons,  but  was 
rejected  popularly  by  a  majority  of  less  than  25,000  (265,194  negative,  240,305 
affirmative).    Rather  curiously,  the  defeat  arose  largely  from  the  defection  of  the 
Catholic  canton  of  Freiburg,  which  in  1900  was  favorable  by  a  vote  of  13,000  to 
3,800.    The  canton's  vote  in  1910  was  for  rejection,  by  11,200  to  3,900.    By  those 
best  acquainted  with  the  situation  this  astonishing  reversal  is  explained  by  the 
influence  which  is  exercised  in  the  canton  to-day  by  M.  Python,  a  dictator  who 
opposes  any  innovation  whereby  his  own  controlling  position  would  be  menaced. 
Not  unnaturally,  the  friends  of  the  project  (and  in  1910  all  parties  save  the  Radicals 
gave  it  their  support)  regard  the  outcome  in  1910  as  a  certain  forecast  of  eventual 
victory.    In  nine  of  the  cantonal  governments,  beginning  with  that  of  Ticino  in 
1891,  the  principle  has  been  already  put  in  operation.    In  truth,  the  defeat  of  1910 
was  followed  promptly  by  a  triumph  in  the  important  canton  of  St.  Gall,  where  the 
proportional  system  was  adopted  for  the  first  time,  February  5,  1911,  for  elections 
of  the  cantonal  council.    See  E.  Secretan,  Suisse,  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire, 
Feb.,  1911;  G.  Daneo,  La  rappresentanza  proporzionale  nella  Svizzera,  in  Nuova 
Antologia,  Sept.  16,  1910. 


434  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

or  eight  cantons,  should  have  the  right  at  any  time  to  demand  the 
passage,  modification,  or  repeal  of  any  sort  of  federal  law  or  federal 
decree.  In  December,  1906,  the  project  was  debated  in  the  National 
Council,  after  which  it  was  referred  to  the  Federal  Council  for  further 
consideration.  The  proposal  is  still  pending,  but  its  eventual  adop- 
cion  is  probable.1 

IV.  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

478.  Centralism  vs.  Federalism. — Until  the  middle  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  the  most  fundamental  of  political  questions  in  modern 
Switzerland  was  that  of  centralization,  and  the  most  enduring  of 
political  cleavages  among  the  people  was  that  which  marked  off  the 
"  centralists  "  from  the  "  federalists."    There  was  a  time  when  the 
annihilation  of  the  cantons  and  the  establishment  .of  a  thoroughly 
consolidated  state  was  not  only  openly  advocated  but  confidently 
predicted.    With  the  establishment,  however,  of  the  reasonable  com- 
promise embodied  in  the  constitution  of  1848  the  issue  of  centraliza- 
tion dropped  pretty  much  into  the  background.    There  continued  to 
be,  and  still  are,  "centralizers;"  but  the  term  has  come  long  since  to 
denote  merely  men  who,  with  due  regard  for  the  susceptibilities  of  the 
cantons,  direct  their  influence  habitually  to  the  strengthening  of  the 
central  agencies  of  government. 

The  constitution  of  1848  was  the  work  of  a  combination  of  cen- 
tralist elements  which  acquired  the  general  designation  of  Radicals. 
Opposed  to  the  Radicals  were  the  federalist  Moderates.  Between 
1848  and  1874  controlling  influence  was  maintained  steadily  by  the 
Radicals,  although  during  the  decade  1850-1860  there  was  a  fusion 
of  parties  in  consequence  of  which  there  existed  through  many  years 
an  extremely  intricate  political  situation.  Gradually  there  emerged  a 
three-fold  party  grouping,  which  has  survived  uninterruptedly  from 
the  era  of  the  constitutional  revision  of  1874  until  our  own  day.  The 
three  parties,  as  aligned  now  through  more  than  a  generation  in  the 
National  Council,  are:  (i)  the  Right,  or  Clericals;  (2)  the  Left,  or 
Radicals;  and  (3)  the  Centre,  or  Liberals.  To  these,  in  very  recent 
times,  must  be  added  a  small  but  growing  group  of  the  Extreme  Left, 
comprising  ultra-democrats  and  socialists. 

479.  The  Parties  of  To-day. — The  basis  of  segregation  of  the  Right 
is  primarily  religious.    The  party  is  thoroughly  clerical,  and  it  has  for 

1  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  280-281.  For  references  on  the  initiative 
and  the  referendum  see  p.  420.  A  very  satisfactory  appraisal  of  the  operation  of 
these  principles  in  Switzerland  may  be  found  in  Lloyd,  A  Sovereign  People,  chaps. 
14-15.  See  also  W.  E.  Rappard,  The  Initiative  and  the  Referendum  in  Switzerland, 
in  American  Political  Science  Review,  Aug.,  1912. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 

its  fundamental  object  the  defense  of  the  Catholic  church  and  the 
interests  of  the  Catholic  population.  In  the  Catholic  cantons  it  oc- 
cupies the  field  almost  alone,  and  everywhere  it  is  the  most  compact 
and  zealous  of  the  parties,  although  even  it  is  not  without  a  certain 
amount  of  division  of  opinion  and  of  policy.  The  Left,  or  JRaolical 
party^has  always  represented  a  combination  of  widely  varied  shades 
"ofradicalism  and  democracy.  Its  greatest  strength  lies  in  the  predom- 
inantly Protestant  cantons,  and  it  is  distinctly  anti-clerical.  Large 
portions  of  the  party  have  ceased  long  since  to  be  really  radical, 
although  on  one  side  there  is  an  imperceptible  shading  off  into  the  ranks 
of  the  advanced  democrats  and  socialists.  Through  many  years  the 
party  has  been  lacking  notoriously  in  cohesion.  Between  the  Con- 
servative Right  and  the  Radical  Left  stands  the  Centre,  or  the  Liberal 
group,  lacking  most  notably  of  all  in  unity,  but  preserving  the  tradi-  .  '  * 
tional  Swiss  principles  of  personal  freedom  in  defiance  of  the  tendency 
of  the  state  in  the  direction  of  paternalism.  The  Liberals  are  not 
strong  numerically,  but  they  comprise  men  of  wealth  and  influence 
(largely  conservative  Protestants),  and  in  the  shaping  of  economic 
policies,  in  which  they  are  interested  principally,  they  sometimes 
exercise  a  powerful  influence.  During  the  years  immediately  follow- 
ing the  constitutional  revision  of  1874  no  one  of  these  three  parties 
possessed  in  the  Federal  Assembly  a  clear  majority,  with  the  conse- 
quence that  the  Centre  was  able  to  maintain  a  balance  between  the 
other  two.  Gradually,  however,  the  Radicals  regained  their  former 
ascendancy,  and  in  subsequent  years  their  preponderance,  in  especially 
the  lower  chamber,  has  tended  steadily  to  be  increased. 

480.  Party  Stability  and  Strength. — Concerning  the  political  parties 
of  Switzerland  two  or  three  things  are  worthy  of  special  observation. 
The  first  is  the  remarkable  stability  which  these  parties,  despite  their 
obvious  lack  of  cohesion,  exhibit  from  the  point  of  view  both  of  party 
identity  and  of  party  strength.  Except  the  Socialists,  who  have 
ceased  to  vote  and  act  with  the  Radicals,  there  has  sprung  into  exist- 
ence not  one  new  political  party  since  1874.  Numerous  and  varied 
as  have  been  the  political  issues  of  these  four  decades,  no  one  of  them 
has  given  rise  to  a  new  party  grouping.  And,  save  for  the  gradual 
augmentation  of  Radical  strength  to  which  allusion  has  been  made, 
there  has  been  in  this  period  no  noteworthy  change  in  the  relative 
strength  of  the  party  groups.  Sudden  fluctuations,  such  as  in  other 
countries  are  common,  are  in  Switzerland  quite  unknown.  The  reasons 
are  varied  and  not  wholly  clear,  but  among  them  seem  to  be  the 
brevity  of  national  legislative  sessions,  the  lack  of  federal  patronage 
whereby  party  zeal  may  be  whetted,  the  indirect  method  of  electing  the 


436  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Federal  Council,  and  the  essentially  non-partisan  character  of  the 
referendum.1  Party  strength  in  the  National  Council  following  the 
election  of  1878  was:  Clericals,  35;  Liberals,  31;  Radicals,  69.  After 
the  election  of  1881  it  was:  Clericals,  36;  Liberals,  26;  and  Radicals,  83. 
In  these  proportions  the  six  triennial  elections  between  1884  and  1902 
produced  no  important  change,  although  in  1890  the  Socialists  broke 
somewhat  into  the  balance  by  winning  six  seats.  After  the  census 
of  1900  the  number  of  members  of  the  Council  was  raised  from  147  to 
167,  and  the  results  of  the  election  of  1902  were  as  follows:  Clericals,  35 ; 
Liberals,  25;  Radicals,  97;  Socialists,  9;  and  Independents,  i.  In  1905 
the  Radicals,  who  hitherto  had  co-operated  with  the  Socialists  in  many 
constituencies,  broke  with  them  upon  the  question  of  military  policy, 
with  the  result  that  the  Socialist  contingent  in  the  Council  was  cut 
to  two.  In  1908  and  1911  the  Socialists  made,  however,  some  recovery; 
so  that,  on  the  whole,  the  party  situation  in  the  Council  remains  to- 
day very  nearly  what  it  was  ten  years  ago.  By  popular  suffrage  the 
Radicals  are  continued  uninterruptedly  in  control,  although  the  people 
do  not  hesitate  again  and  again  to  reject  measures  framed  by  Radical 
administrators  and  law-makers  and  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  na- 
tion. 

481.  The  Inactivity  of  Parties. — A  second  important  fact  respecting 
the  parties  of  Switzerland  is  their  all  but  total  lack  of  organization  and 
machinery.  Parties  are  little  more  than  groups  of  people  who  hold 
similar  views  upon  public  questions.  Of  office-seekers  there  are  few, 
and  of  professional  politicians  fewer  still.  Elections  are  not  infrequently 
uncontested,  and  only  at  rare  intervals  do  they  serve  to  awaken  any 
considerable  public  enthusiasm.  There  are  no  campaign  managers  and 
funds,  no  platforms,  no  national  committees,  no  elaborate  systems 
of  caucuses  or  conventions.  Candidates  for  seats  in  the  National 
Council  are  nominated  by  political  gatherings  in  the  several  districts, 
but  the  proceedings  are  frequently  of  an  all  but  purely  non-partisan 
character.  Political  congresses  are  held  occasionally,  and  a  few  political 
associations  exist,  but  their  activities  are  limited  and  comparatively 
unimportant.  So  far  as  there  is  party  vigor  at  all,  it  is  expended  prin- 
cipally upon  local  issues  and  contests  within  the  cantons. 

Finally,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  Swiss  government  is  not  a 
government  by  party  at  all.  The  Federal  Council  regularly  includes 
members  of  more  than  one  party,  and  there  is  no  attempt  to  preserve 
in  the  body  a  homogeneous  partisan  character.  Even  in  the  legislative 
councils  considerations  of  party  are  but  incidental.  Upon  by  no  means 

1  Upon  this  subject,  especially  the  effects  of  the  referendum  upon  political  parties, 
see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  314-332. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  437 

all  public  issues  are  party  lines  drawn,  and  where  they  are  drawn  there 
is  seldom  that  compactness  and  discipline  of  party  to  which  legis- 
lative assemblies  in  other  nations  are  accustomed.  An  evidence  of  the 
secondary  importance  of  party  demarcation  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that, 
instead  of  being  arranged  in  groups  according  to  party  affiliations, 
the  members  of  the  National  Council  are  so  placed,  as  a  rule,  that  all 
of  the  deputies  of  a  canton  occupy  contiguous  seats.  The  Federal 
Council,  being  elected  by  the  Federal  Assembly,  is  practically  certain 
to  reflect  the  preponderating  political  complexion  of  that  body.  But, 
in  the  entire  absence  of  the  parliamentary  system,  there  is  no  essential 
reason  why  politically  the  executive  and  legislative  organs  should  be  in 
accord.1 

V.  THE  JUDICIARY 

482.;  The  Federal  Court:  Civil  Jurisdiction. — In  respect  toorganiza- 
tibQyXhe  Swiss  federal  judiciary  is  very  simple;  in  respect  to  functions, 
it  is  extremely  complex.  It  comprises  but  a  single  tribunal,  the  Bundes- 
gericht,  or  Federal  Court.  The  court,  created  originally  in  1848,  con- 
sists to-day  of  sixteen  judges  and  nine  alternates,  all  chosen  by  the 
Federal  Assembly  for  a  term  of  six  years.  Any  citizen  eligible  to  the 
National  Council  may  be  elected  to  the  Federal  Court,  but  it  is  incum- 
bent upon  the  Assembly  to  take  care  that  all  of  the  three  officially 
recognized  languages — German,  French,  and  Italian — are  represented. 
The  president  and  vice-president  of  the  court  are  designated  by  the 
Assembly,  for  a  two  years'  term,  but  the  court  is  authorized  to  organize 
its  own  secretariat  and  to  appoint  the  officials  thereof.  Judges  are 
forbidden  to  sit  in  either  house  of  the  federal  legislature,  to  occupy 
any  other  office,  or  to  engage  in  any  alien  pursuit  or  profession.  Their 
yearly  salary  is  12,000  francs.  The  seat  of  the  Court  is  Lausanne,  in 
the  French  province  of  Vaud. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Court  extends  not  only  to  ordinary 
civil  and  criminal  cases  but  also  to  cases  arising  under  public  law. 
The  competence  of  the  tribunal  in  civil  cases  is  very  considerable.  It 
extends  to  all  suits  between  the  Confederation  and  the  cantons;  between 
the  Confederation  and  corporations  or  individuals,  when  such  corpora- 
tions or  individuals  appear  as  plaintiffs,  and  when  the  amount  involved 
exceeds  3,000  francs;  between  cantons;  and  between  cantons  and  cor- 
porations or  individuals,  upon  request  of  the  parties,  and  when  the 
amount  involved  exceeds  3,000  francs.  The  constitution  authorizes  the 

1  On  Swiss  political  parties  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  Chap.  13; 
Adams  and  Cunningham,  The  Swiss  Confederation,  Chap.  7. 


438  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Confederation  to  enlarge,  by  legislation,  the  competence  of  the  Court,1 
and  from  time  to  time  a  variety  of  specific  fields  of  civil  jurisdiction  have 
been  opened  to  it,  such  as  those  of  transportation  and  bankruptcy. 
In  addition  to  original  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  that  have  been  named, 
the  Court  is  required  by  the  constitution  to  exercise  appellate  juris- 
diction in  cases  carried  on  appeal,  by  mutual  consent  of  the  parties, 
from  the  cantonal  courts.  For  the  adjudication  of  civil  cases  the  Court 
divides  itself  into  two  chambers  of  seven  members  each,  presided  over 
respectively  by  the  president  and  vice-president. 

483.  Criminal  and  Public  Law  Jurisdiction. — The  tribunal's  criminal 
jurisdiction  is  less  extensive.  It  covers,  in  the  main,  cases  of  high  treason 
against  the  Confederation,  crimes  and  misdemeanors  against  the  law 
of  nations,  political  crimes  and  misdemeanors  of  such  seriousness  as 
to  occasion  armed  federal  intervention,  and  charges  against  officers 
appointed  by  a  federal  authority,  when  such  authority  makes  applica- 
tion to  the  Federal  Court.  In  cases  falling  within  any  one  of  these 
categories  the  Court  is  required  to  employ  a  jury  to  decide  questions 
of  fact.  With  the  consent  of  the  Federal  Assembly,  criminal  cases  of 
other  kinds  may  be  referred  to  the  Federal  Court  by  the  cantonal  govern- 
ments, ^^or  the  trial  of  criminal  cases  the  Court  is  divided  each  year 
into  four  chambers,  each  of  three  members,  save  the  fourth  and  highest, 
the  Kassationshof,  or  Court  of  Appeals,  which  has  five.  The  Confeder- 
ation is  divided  into  three  Assizenbezirke,  or  assize  districts,  and  from 
time  to  time  one  of  the  criminal  chambers  sits  in  each. 

Within  the  domain  of  public  law  the  Court  is  given  cognizance  of 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  federal  and  cantonal  authorities,  con- 
flicts between  cantons  when  arising  out  of  questions  of  public  law, 
complaints  of  violation  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  citizens,  and 
complaints  of  individuals  by  reason  of  the  violation  of  concordates  or 
treaties.  In  actual  operation,  the  range  of  powers  which  would  appear 
thus  to  be  conferred  is  much  restricted  by  a  clause  which  declares  that 
"conflicts  of  administrative  jurisdiction  are  reserved,  and  are  to  be 
settled  in  a  manner  prescribed  by  federal  legislation."  2  Legislation 
in  pursuance  of  this  clause  has  withdrawn  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Court  a  long  list  of  possible  subjects  of  litigation.  Like  European  courts 
generally,  the  Swiss  Federal  Court  possesses  no  power  to  determine  the 
constitutionality  of  law,  federal  or  cantonal.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
obligated  to  apply  all  law,  by  whatever  proper  authority  enacted.3 

1  Art.  114.    Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II.,  287. 

2  Art.  112.    Ibid.,  II.,  286. 

s  On  the  Swiss  federal  judiciary  see  Vincent,  Government  in  Switzerland,  Chap. 
15;  Adams  and  Cunningham,  The  Swiss  Confederation,  Chap.  5. 


THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  439 

,484^ The  Civil  Code.— In  1898  the  nation,  through  the  means  of  a 
referendum,  adopted  the  principle  of  the  unification  of  all  cantonal 
legal  systems,  civil  and  criminal,  in  a  set  of  federal  codes.  Through  more 
than  a  decade  the  task  has  been  in  progress,  drafts  being  prepared  by 
experts  and  submitted  from  time  to  time  for  criticism  to  special  com- 
missions and  to  public  opinion.  Early  in  1908  the  Assembly  adopted 
an  elaborate  Civil  Code  which  in  this  way  had  been  worked  out,  and 
January  i,  1912,  this  monumental  body  of  law  was  put  in  operation. 
By  it  many  long  established  practices  within  the  individual  cantons 
were  abolished  or  modified;  but  the  humane  and  progressive  character 
of  the  Code  won  for  it  such  a  measure  of  public  approval  that  there  was 
not  even  demand  that  the  instrument  be  submitted  to  a  referendum. 


PART  VI.— AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 

CHAPTER  XXIV 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH 

'486/  The  Dual  Monarchy. — The  dual  monarchy  Austria-Hungary, 
iprising  a  sixteenth  of  the  area,  and  containing  an  eighth  of  the 
population,  of  all  Europe,  is  an  anomaly  among  nations.  It  consists, 
strictly,  of  two  sovereign  states,  each  of  which  has  a  governmental 
system  all  but  complete  within  itself.  One  of  these  is  known  officially  as 
"The  Kingdoms  and  Lands  represented  in  the  Reichsrath,"  but  more 
familiarly  as  Cisleithania,  or  the  Empire  of  Austria.  The  other,  officially 
designated  as  "The  Lands  of  St.  StephenVCrown,"  is  commonly  called 
Transleithania,  or  the  Kingdom  of  Hungary.  By  certain  historical 
and  political  ties  the  two  are  bound  togetheTunder  the  official  name  of 
the  Osterreichisch-ungarische  Monarchic,  or  Austro-Hungarian  Mon- 
archy.1 In  the  one  the  common  sovereign  is  Emperor;  in  the  other, 
Apostolic  King. 

"  If,"  says  a  modern  writer, "  France  has  been  a  laboratory  for  political 
experiments,  Austria-Hungary  is  a  museum  of  political  curiosities, 
but  it  contains  nothing  so  extraordinary  as  the  relation  between  Austria 
and  Hungary  themselves."  2  In  its  present  form  this  relation  rests 
upon  the  memorable  Ausgleich,  or  Compromise,  of  1867.  The  historical 
phases  of  it,  however,  may  be  traced  to  a  period  as  remote  as  the  first 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  when,  in  1526,  after  the  Hungarians  had 
suffered  overwhelming  defeat  by  the  Turks  at  the  Battle  of  Mohacs, 
a  Hapsburg  prince,  the  later  Emperor  Ferdinand  I.,  assumed,  upon 
election  by  the  Hungarian  diet,  the  throne  of  the  demoralized  eastern 
kingdom.3  Until  the  eighteenth  century  the  union  of  the  two  monarchies 
was  always  precarious,  much  of  the  time  practically  non-existent. 
Set  in  the  midst  of  a  whirlpool  of  races  and  political  powers,  the  ancient 
Hungarian  state,  recovered  from  its  days  of  disaster,  struggled  unre- 
mittingly to  preserve  its  identity,  and  even  to  regain  its  independence, 

1  This  designation  was  first  employed  in  a  diploma  of  the  Emperor  Francis 
Joseph  I.,  November  14,  1868  (see  p.  459). 

2  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  177. 
*  See  p.  448. 

441 


442  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

as  against  the  overshadowing  Imperial  authority  of  which  Austria 
was  the  seat.  The  effort  was  fairly  successful  and  as  late  as  the  Napo- 
leonic period  Hungary,  while  bound  to  her  western  neighbor  by  a  per- 
sonal union  through  the  crown,  maintained  not  only  her  essential  auton- 
omy but  even  the  constitutional  style  of  government  which  had  been  hers 
since  at  least  the  early  portion  of  the  thirteenth  century.  A  rapid 
sketch  of  the  earlier  political  development  of  the  two  states  seems  a 
necessary  introduction  to  an  examination  of  the  institutions,  joint  and 
separate,  which  to-day  enter  into  the  texture  of  their  governmental 
organization. 

I.  AUSTRIAN  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  TO  1815 

486.  Origins. — The  original  Austria  was  a  mark,  or  border  county, 
lying  along  the  south  bank  of  the  Danube,  east  of  the  river  Enns,  and 
founded  by  Charlemagne  as  a  bulwark  of  the  Frankish  kingdom  against 
the  Slavs.    During  the  ninth  century  the  territory  was  overrun  suc- 
cessively by  the  Moravians  and  the  Magyars,  or  Hungarians,  and  all 
traces  of  Frankish  occupation  were  swept  away.    At  the  middle  of  the 
tenth  century,  however,  following  Otto  the  Great's  signal  triumph  over 
the  Hungarians  on  the  Lech  in  955,  the  mark  was  reconstituted;  and 
from  that  point  the  development  of  modern  Austria  is  to  be  traced  con- 
tinuously.    The  name  Osterreich,  i.  e.,  "eastern  empire"  or  "do- 
minion," appears  in  a  charter  as  early  as  996. 

The  first  notable  period  of  Austrian  history  was  that  covered  by  the 
rule  of  the  house  of  Babenberg.  The  government  of  the  mark  was 
intrusted  by  the  Emperor  Otto  II.  to  Leopold  of  Babenberg  in  976, 
and  from  that  date  to  the  extinction  of  the  fa,mily  in  1246  the  energies 
of  the  Babenbergs  were  absorbed  principally  in  the  enlargement  of  the 
boundaries  of  their  dominion  and  in  the  consolidation  of  its  adminis- 
tration. In  1156  the  mark  was  raised  by  King  Frederick  I.  to  the  dignity 
of  a  duchy,  and  such  were  the  privileges  conferred  upon  it  that  the  duke's 
only  obligation  consisted  in  the  attending  of  any  Imperial  diet  which 
should  be  held  in  Bavaria  and  the  sending  of  a  contingent  to  the  Im- 
perial army  for  such  campaigns  as  should  be  undertaken  in  countries 
adjoining  the  duchy. 

487.  The  Establishment  of  Hapsburg  Dominion,  1276. — In  1251 — 
five  years  after  the  death  of  the  last  Babenberg — the  estates  of  the 
duchy  elected  as  duke  Ottakar,  son  of  Wenceslaus  I.,  king  of  Bohemia. 
In  1276,  however,  Duke  Ottakar  was  compelled  to  yield  his  three 
dominions  of  Austria,  Styria,  and  Carinthia  to  Rudolph  of  Hapsburg, 
who,  in  1273,  upon  the  breaking  of  the  Interregnum,  had  become 
German  king  and  emperor;  and  at  this  point  began  in  Austria  the 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  443 

rule  of  the  illustrious  Hapsburg  dynasty  of  which  the  present  Emperor 
Francis  Joseph  is  a  representative.  Under  the  adroit  management  of 
Rudolph  the  center  of  gravity  of  Hapsburg  power  was  shifted  per- 
manently from  the  Rhine  to  the  Danube,  and  throughout  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Middle  Ages  the  history  of  Austria  is  a  story  largely  of 
the  varying  fortunes  of  the  Hapsburg  interests.  In  1453  the  duchy 
was  raised  to  the  rank  of  an  archduchy,  and  later  in  the  century  the 
Emperor  Maximilian  I.  entertained  plans  for  the  establishment  of  an 
Austrian  electorate,  or  even  an  Austrian  kingdom.  These  plans  were 
not  carried  into  execution,  but  the  Austrian  lands  were  constituted  one 
of  the  Imperial  circles  which  were  created  in  1512,  and  in  1518  repre- 
sentatives of  the  various  Austrian  Landtage,  or  diets,  were  gathered 
for  the  first  time  in  national  assembly  at  Innsbruck. 

488.  Austro-Hungarian  Consolidation. —  In  1519  Maximilian  I. 
was  succeeded  in  the  archduchy  of  Austria,  as  well  as  in  the  Imperial 
office,  by  his  grandson  Charles  of  Spain,  known  thenceforth  as  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.  To  his  brother  Ferdinand,  however,  Charles 
resigned  the  whole  of  his  Austrian  possessions,  and  to  Austrian  affairs 
he  gave  throughout  his  reign  but  scant  attention.  Ferdinand,  in  turn, 
devoted  himself  principally  to  warfare  with  the  Turks  and  to  an  at- 
tempt to  secure  the  sovereignty  of  Hungary.  His  efforts  met  with  a 
measure  of  success  and  there  resulted  that  affiliation  of  Austria  and 
Hungary  which,  though  varying  greatly  from  period  to  period  in 
strength  and  in  effect,  has  been  maintained  to  the  present  day.  Dur- 
ing a  century  succeeding  Ferdinand's  accession  to  the  Imperial  throne 
in  1556,  the  affairs  of  Austria  were  inextricably  intertwined  with  those 
of  the  Empire,  and  it  was  only  with  the  virtual  disintegration  of  the 
Empire  in  consequence  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  that  the  Hapsburg 
sovereigns  fell  back  upon  the  policy  of  devoting  themselves  more 
immediately  to  the  interests  of  their  Austrian  dominion. 

The  fruits  of  this  policy  were  manifest  during  the  long  reign  of 
Leopold  L,  who  ruled  in  Austria  from  1655  to  1705  and  was  likewise 
emperor  during  the  last  forty-eight  years  of  this  period.  At  the  close 
of  a  prolonged  series  of  Turkish  wars,  the  Peace  of  Karlowitz,  Jan- 
uary 26,  1699,  added  definitely  to  the  Austrian  dominion  Slavonia, 
Transylvania,  and  all  Hungary  save  the  banat  of  Temesvar,  and  thus 
completed  the  edifice  of  the  Austrian  monarchy.1  The  period  was 

1  At  the  diet  of  Pressburg,  in  1687-1688,  the  Hungarian  crown  had  been  declared 
hereditary  in  the  house  of  Hapsburg,  and  the  Austrian  heir,  Joseph,  had  been 
crowned  hereditary  king.  In  1697  Transylvania  was  united  to  the  Hungarian 
monarchy.  The  banat  of  Temesvar  was  acquired  by  the  Hapsburgs  in  1718.  The 
term  "  banat "  denotes  a  border  district,  or  march. 


444  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

likewise  one  of  internal  consolidation.  The  Diet  continued  to  be 
summoned  from  time  to  time,  but  the  powers  of  the  crown  were  aug- 
mented enormously,  and  it  is  to  these  years  that  scholars  have  traced 
the  origins  of  that  thoroughgoing  bureaucratic  regime  which,  assuming 
more  definite  form  under  Maria  Theresa,  continued  unimpaired  until 
the  revolution  of  1848.  It  was  in  the  same  period  that  the  Austrian 
standing  army  was  established. 

489.  Development  of  Autocracy  Under  Maria  Theresa,  1740-1780. — 
The  principal  threads  in  Austrian  history  in  the  eighteenth  century 
are  the  foreign  entanglements,  including  the  war  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession, the  war  of  the  Austrian  Succession,  and  the  Seven  Years'  War, 
and  the  internal  measures,  of  reform  and  otherwise,  undertaken  by 
the  successive  sovereigns,  especially  Maria  Theresa  (1740-1780)  and 
Joseph  II.  (1780-1790).     For  Austria  the  net  result  of  the  wars  was 
the  loss  of  territory  and  also  of  influence,  among  the  states  of  the 
Empire,  if  not  among  those  of  all  Europe.    On  the  side  of  internal 
affairs  it  may  be  observed  simply  that  Maria  Theresa  became  virtually 
the  founder  of  the  unified  Austrian  state,  and  that,  in  social  conditions 
generally,  the  reign  of  this  sovereign  marks  more  largely  than  that  of 
any  other  the  transition  in  the  Hapsburg  dominions  from  mediaeval 
to  modern  times.    Unlike  her  doctrinaire  son  and  successor,  Joseph, 
Maria  Theresa  was  of  an  eminently  practical  turn  of  mind.    She  intro- 
duced innovations,  but  she  clothed  them  with  the  vestments  of  an- 
cient institutions.     She  made  the  government  more  than  ever  auto- 
cratic, but  she  did  not  interfere  with  the  nominal  privileges  of  the  old 
estates.    In  Hungary  the  constitution  was  left  untouched,  but  during 
the  forty  years  of  the  reign  the  Diet  was  assembled  only  four  times,  and 
government  was,  in  effect,  by  royal  decree.    Joseph  II.  assumed  the 
throne  in  1780  bent  primarily  upon  a  policy  of  "reform  from  above." 
Utterly  unacquainted  with  the  actual  conctttion  of  his  dominions  and 
unappreciative  of  the  difficulties  inherent  in  their  administration,  the 
new  sovereign  set  about  the  sweeping  away  of  the  entire  existing  order 
and  the  substituting  of  a  governmental  scheme  which  was  logical 
enough,  to  be  sure,  but  entirely  impracticable.    The  attempt,  as  was 
inevitable,  failed  utterly. 

490.  Austria  and  France,  1789-1816. —  Leopold  II.  inherited,  in 
1790,  a  dominion  substantially  as  it  was  at  the  death  of  Maria  Theresa. 
Prior  to  his  accession  Leopold  had  acquired  a  reputation  for  liberalism, 
but  apprehension  aroused  by  the  revolution  in  France  was  of  itself 
sufficient  to  turn  him  promptly  into  the  traditional  paths  of  Austrian 
autocracy.    His  reign  was  brief  (1790-1792),  but  that  of  his  son  and 
successor,  Francis  II.,  which  continued  through  the  revolutionary 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  445 

epoch,  was  essentially  a  continuation  of  it,  and  from  first  to  last  there 
was  maintained  with  complete  success  that  relentless  policy  of  "sta- 
bility" so  conspicuously  associated  later  with  the  name  of  Metternich. 
Hardly  any  portion  of  Europe  was  less  affected  by  the  ideas  and  trans- 
formations of  the  Revolution  than  was  Austria. 

Having  resisted  by  every  means  at  her  disposal,  including  resort 
to  arms,  the  progress  of  revolution,  Austria  set  herself  firmly,  likewise, 
in  opposition  to  the  ambitions  of  Napoleon.  Of  the  many  conse- 
quences of  the  prolonged  combat  between  Napoleon  and  the  Haps- 
burg  power,  one  only  need  be  mentioned  here.  August  n,  1804, 
Francis  II.,  archduke  of  Austria  and  emperor  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  assumed  the  name  and  title  of  Francis  I.,  emperor  of  Austria. 
To  the  taking  of  this  step  the  Hapsburg  monarch  was  influenced  in 
part  by  Napoleon's  assumption,  three  months  previously,  of  the  title 
of  emperor  of  the  French,  and  in  part  by  anticipation  that  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  would  soon  be  subverted  completely  by  the  conqueror. 
The  apprehension  proved  well-founded.  Within  two  years  it  was 
made  known  definitely  that  the  Napoleonic  plan  of  international  read- 
justment involved  as  one  of  its  principal  features  the  termination,  once 
for  all,  of  an  institution  which,  as  Voltaire  had  already  said,  was  "no 
longer  holy,  Roman,  or  an  empire."  August  6,  1806,  the  title  and 
functions  of  Holy  Roman  Emperor  were  relinquished  formally  by  the 
Austrian  monarch.  The  Austrian  imperial  title  of  to-day,  dates, 
however,  from  1804. 

II.  HUNGARIAN  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  TO  1815 

491.  Beginnings. — According   to  accounts   which  are  but  indif- 
ferently reliable,  the  Magyars,  or  Hungarians,  lately  come  as  invaders 
from  Asia,  made  their  first  appearance  in  the  land  which  now  bears 
their  name  in  the  year  895.    Certain  it  is  that  during  the  first  half  of 
the  tenth  century  they  terrorized  repeatedly  the  populations  of  Ger- 
many and  France,  until,  in  955,  their  signal  defeat  at  the  Lechfeld 
by  the  German  king  (the  later  Emperor  Otto  I.)  checked  effectually 
their  onslaughts  and  re-enforced  the  disposition  already  in  evidence 
among  them  to  take  on  a  settled  mode  of  life.    In  the  second  half  of 
the  tenth  century  they  occupied  definitely  the  valleys  of  the  Danube 
and  the  Theiss,  wedging  apart,  as  do  their  descendants  to  this  day, 
the  Slavs  of  the  north  and  those  of  the  Balkan  regions. 

492.  Institutional  Growth  Under  Stephen  I.,  997-1038. — The  prin- 
cipal formative  period  in  the  history  of  the  Hungarian  nation  is  the 
long  reign  of  Stephen  I.,  or,  as  he  is  more  commonly  known,  St. 


446  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Stephen.  In  this  reign  were  established  firmly  both  the  Hungarian 
state  and  the  Hungarian  church;  and  in  the  organization  of  both 
Stephen  exhibited  a  measure  of  capacity  which  entitles  him  to  high  rank 
among  the  constructive  statesmen  of  mediaeval  Europe.  Under  his 
predecessor  the  court  had  accepted  Roman  Christianity,  but  during 
his  reign  the  nation  itself  was  Christianized  and  the  machinery  of  the 
Church  was  for  the  first  time  put  effectively  in  operation.  In  the  year 
i ooi  Pope  Sylvester  II.  accorded  formal  recognition  to  Magyar  na- 
tionality by  bestowing  upon  Prince  Stephen  a  kingly  crown,  and  to 
this  day  the  joint  sovereign  of  Austria-Hungary  is  inducted  into 
office  as  Hungarian  monarch  with  the  identical  crown  which  Pope 
Sylvester  transmitted  to  the  missionary-king  nine  centuries  ago.  In 
the  elaboration  of  a  governmental  system  King  Stephen  and  the  ad- 
visers whom  he  gathered  from  foreign  lands  had  virtually  a  free  field. 
The  nation  possessed  a  traditional  right  to  elect  its  sovereign  and  to 
gather  in  public  assembly,  and  these  privileges  were  left  untouched. 
None  the  less,  the  system  that  was  set  up  was  based  upon  a  conception 
of  royal  power  unimpaired  by  those  feudal  relationships  by  which  in 
western  countries  monarchy  was  being  reduced  to  its  lowest  estate. 
The  old  Magyar  tribal  system  was  abolished  and  as  a  basis  of  admin- 
istration there  was  adopted  the  Frankish  system  of  counties.  The 
central  and  western  portions  of  the  country,  being  more  settled,  were 
divided  into  forty-six  counties,  at  the  head  of  each  of  which  was 
placed  a  count,  or  lord-lieutenant  (foispdn),  appointed  by  the  crown 
and  authorized  in  turn  to  designate  his  subordinates,  the  castellan 
(vdrnagy),  the  chief  captain  (hadnagy),  and  the  hundredor  (szazados). 
This  transplantation  of  institutions  is  a  matter  of  permanent  impor- 
tance, for,  as  will  appear,  the  county  is  still  the  basal  unit  of  the  Hun- 
garian administrative  system. 

493.  The  Golden  Bull,  1222. — During  the  century  and  a  half 
which  followed  the  reign  of  Stephen  the  consolidation  of  the  kingdom, 
despite  frequent  conflicts  with  the  Eastern  Empire,  was  continued. 
The  court  took  on  something  of  the  brilliancy  of  the  Byzantine  model, 
and  in  the  later  twelfth  century  King  Bela  III.  inaugurated  a  policy — 
that  of  crowning  as  successor  the  sovereign's  eldest  son  while  yet  the 
sovereign  lived — by  which  were  introduced  in  effect  the  twin  prin- 
ciples of  heredity  and  primogeniture.  In  1222  King  Andrew  II. 
(1204-1235)  promulgated  a  famous  instrument,  the  Bulla  Aurea,  or 
Golden  Bull,  which  has  been  likened  many  times  to  the  Great  Charter 
conceded  to  his  barons  by  King  John  of  England  seven  years  earlier. 
The  precise  purport  of  the  Golden  Bull  is  somewhat  doubtful.  By 
some  the  instrument  has  been  understood  to  have  comprised  a  virtual 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  447 

surrender  on  the  part  of  the  crown  in  the  interest  of  a  class  of  in- 
solent and  self-seeking  nobles  with  which  the  country  was  cursed.  By 
others  it  has  been  interpreted  as  a  measure  designed  to  strengthen  the 
crown  by  winning  the  support  of  the  mass  of  the  lesser  nobles  against 
the  few  greater  ones.1  The  exemption  of  all  nobles  from  taxation  was 
confirmed;  all  were  exempted  likewise  from  arbitrary  arrest  and  pun- 
ishment. On  the  other  hand,  it  was  forbidden  expressly  that  the  titles 
and  holdings  of  lords-lieutenant  should  become  hereditary.  The  most 
reasonable  conclusion  is  that  the  instrument  represents  a  compromise 
designed  to  afford  a  working  arrangement  in  a  period  of  unusual 
stress  between  crown  and  nobility.  Although  the  document  was 
amplified  in  1231  and  its  guarantees  were  placed  under  the  special 
guardianship  of  the  Church,  it  does  not  appear  that  its  positive  effects 
in  the  period  immediately  following  were  pronounced.  The  Golden 
Bull,  none  the  less,  has  ever  been  regarded  as  the  foundation  of 
Hungarian  constitutional  liberty.  As  such,  it  was  confirmed  specifi- 
cally in  the  coronation  oath  of  every  Hapsburg  sovereign  from  the 
sixteenth  to  the  eighteenth  century. 

494.  Three  Centuries  of  Constitutional  Unsettlement. — The  last  cen- 
tury of  the  Arpad  dynasty,  which  was  ended  in  1308,  was  a  period  of 
depression  and  of  revolution.  The  weakness  of  the  later  Arpads,  the 
ruin  wrought  by  the  Tatar  invasion  of  1241-1242,  the  infiltration  of  feu- 
dalism, and  perennial  civil  discord  subverted  the  splendid  monarchical 
establishment  of  King  Stephen  and  brought  the  country  into  virtual 
subjection  to  a  small  body  of  avaricious  nobles.  The  Arpads  were  suc- 
ceeded by  two  Angevin  princes  from  the  kingdom  of  Naples — Charles 
I.  (1310-1342)  and  Louis  I.  (1342-1382) — under  whom  notable  prog- 
ress was  made  toward  the  rehabilitation  of  the  royal  power.  Yet  in 
the  midst  of  then-  reforms  appeared  the  first  foreshadowings  of  that 
great  Turkish  onslaught  by  which  eventually  the  independent  Hungarian 
monarchy  was  destined  to  be  annihilated  completely.  The  long  reign 
of  Sigismund  (1387-1437)  was  occupied  almost  wholly  in  resistance 
to  the  Ottoman  advance.  So  urgent  did  this  sovereign  deem  the  pushing 
of  military  preparations  that  he  fell  into  the  custom  of  summoning 
the  Diet  once,  and  not  infrequently  twice,  a  year,  and  this  body  acquired 
rapidly  a  bulk  of  legislative  and  fiscal  authority  which  never  before  had 
been  accorded  it.  Persons  entitled  to  membership  were  regularly  the 
nobles  and  higher  clergy.  But  hi  1397  the  free  and  royal  towns  were 
invited  to  send  deputies,  and  this  privilege  seems  to  have  been  given 
statutory  confirmation.  By  the  ripening  of  the  Hungarian  feudal 

1 J.  Andrassy,  Development  of  Hungarian  Constitutional  Liberty  (London, 

1008),  93. 


448  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

system,  however,  and  the  struggles  for  the  throne  which  followed  the 
death  of  King  Albert  V.  (1439),  much  that  was  accomplished  by  Sigis- 
mund  and  his  diets  was  undone.  Ultimately,  measures  of  vigilance 
were  renewed  under  John  Hunyadi, — by  voice  of  the  Diet  "governor"  of 
Hungary,  1446-1456, — and,  under  his  son  King  Matthias  I.  (1458-1490). 
During  the  last-mentioned  reign  fifteen  diets  are  known  to  have  been 
held,  and  no  fewer  than  450  statutes  to  have  been  enacted.  The  Hunga- 
rian common  law  was  codified  afresh  and  the  entire  governmental  system 
overhauled.  But  again  succeeded  a  period,  from  the  accession  of  Wladis- 
laus  II.  to  the  battle  of  Mohacs,  during  which  turbulence  reigned  su- 
preme and  national  spirit  all  but  disappeared. 

496.  The  Establishment  of  Austrian  Dominion. — In  1526  the  long 
expected  blow  fell.  Under  the  Sultan  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  the 
Turks  invaded  the  Hungarian  kingdom  and  at  the  battle  of  Mohacs, 
August  28,  put  to  rout  the  entire  Hungarian  army.  The  invading 
hosts  chose  to  return  almost  instantly  to  Constantinople,  but  when  they 
withdrew  they  left  one-quarter  of  the  Hungarian  dominion  in  utter 
desolation.  It  was  at  this  point,  as  has  been  stated,  that  the  Hapsburg 
rulers  of  Austria  first  acquired  the  throne  of  Hungary.  The  death  of 
King  Louis  at  Mohacs  was  followed  by  the  election  of  John  Zapolya 
as  king.  But  the  archduke  Ferdinand,  whose  wife,  Anne,  was  a  sister 
of  Louis,  laid  claim  to  the  throne  and,  in  November,  1527,  contrived 
to  procure  an  election  thereto  at  the  hand  of  the  Diet.  In  1529  the  de- 
posed Zapolya  was  reinstated  at  Buda  by  the  Sultan.  The  upshot 
was  civil  war,  which  was  terminated  in  1538  by  a  treaty  under  whose 
terms  the  kingdom  was  divided  between  the  two  claimants.  Zapolya  re- 
tained approximately  two-thirds  of  the  country,  while  to  Ferdinand  was 
conceded  the  remaining  portion,  comprising  Croatia-Slavonia  and  the 
five  westernmost  counties.  The  government  which  Zapolya  maintained 
at  Buda  had  rather  the  better  claim  to  be  considered  the  continuation 
of  the  old  Hungarian  monarchy;  but  from  1527  onwards  some  portion 
of  Hungary,  and  eventually  the  whole,  was  attached  regularly  to  the 
Hapsburg  crown. 

In  1540  Zapolya  died  and  the  Diet  at  Buda  elected  as  king  his  infant 
son  John  Sigismund.  On  the  basis  of  earlier  pledges  Ferdinand 
laid  claim  to  Zapolya's  possessions,  but  the  Sultan  intervened  and  in 
1547  there  was  worked  out  a  three-fold  division  of  the  kingdom,  on  the 
principle  of  uti  possedetis,  under  which  thirty-five  counties  (including 
Croatia  and  Slavonia)  were  assigned  to  Ferdinand,  Transylvania  and 
sixteen  adjacent  counties  were  retained  by  John  Sigismund,  while  the 
remaining  portions  of  the  kingdom  were  annexed  to  the  dominions  of 
the  Sultan.  With  frequent  modifications  in  detail,  this  three-fold 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  449 

division  persisted  through  the  next  century  and  a  hah0.  The  period  was 
marked  by  frequent  wars,  by  political  confusion,  and  by  the  assumption 
on  the  part  of  the  Hapsburg  sovereigns  of  an  increasingly  autocratic 
attitude  in  relation  to  their  Hungarian  dependencies.  It  was  brought 
to  a  close  by  the  Peace  of  Karlowitz,  January  26,  1699,  whereby  the 
Hapsburg  dynasty  acquired  dominion  over  the  whole  of  Hungary, 
except  the  banat  of  Tamesvar,  which  was  acquired  nineteen  years  later. 

496.  Austrian  Encroachment:  the  Pragmatic  Sanction. — The  im- 
mediate effect  of  the  termination  of  the  Turkish  wars  was  to  enhance 
yet  further  the  despotism  of  the  Hapsburgs  in  Hungary.    In  1687  the 
Emperor  Leopold  I.  induced  a  rump  diet  at  Pressburg  to  abrogate 
that  clause  of  the  Golden  Bull  which  authorized  armed  resistance  to 
unconstitutional  acts  of  the  sovereign,  and  likewise  to  declare  the 
Hungarian  crown  hereditary  in  the  house  of  Hapsburg.    After  upwards 
of  seven  hundred  years  of  existence,  the  elective  Hungarian  monarchy 
was  brought  thus  to  an  end.    In  1715  King  Charles  III.1  persuaded  the 
Diet  to  consent  to  the  establishment  of  a  standing  army,  recruited  and 
supported  under  regulation  of  the  Diet  but  controlled  by  the  Austrian 
council  of  war.    By  the  diet  of  1722  there  was  established  a  Hungarian 
court  of  chancery  at  Vienna  and  the  government  of  Hungary  was  com- 
mitted to  a  stadtholder  at  Pressburg  who  was  made  independent  of 
the  Diet  and  responsible  to  the  sovereign  alone.    The  diet  of  1722 
likewise  accepted  formally  the  Pragmatic  Sanction  of  1713  by  which 
the  Emperor  Charles  settled  the  succession  to  his  hereditary  dominions, 
in  default  of  male  heirs,  upon  his  daughter  Maria  Theresa  and  her 
heirs;2 and  in  measures  promulgated  during  the  succeeding  year  the 
Emperor  entered  into  a  fresh  compact  with  his  Hungarian  subjects 
which  continued  the  basis  of  Hapsburg-Hungarian  relations  until  1848. 
On  the  one  hand,  Hungary  was  declared  inseparable  from  the  Hapsburg 
dominions,  so  long  as  there  should  be  a  legal  heir;  on  the  other,  the  crown 
was  sworn  to  preserve  the  Hungarian  constitution  intact,  with  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  laws,  and  customs  of  the  kingdom.    The  net  result 
of  all  of  these  measures,  none  the  less,  was  to  impair  perceptibly  the 
original  autonomy  of  the  Hungarian  state. 

497.  The  Later  Eighteenth  Century. — Maria  Theresa  cherished  a 
genuine  interest  in  Hungarian  affairs  and  was  deeply  solicitous  con- 
cerning the  welfare  of  her  Hungarian  subjects.   It  was  never  her  intent, 
however,  to  encourage  Hungarian  self-government.    The  constitution 

1  Charles  VI.  as  emperor. 

a  The  Pragmatic  Sanction  was  accepted  at  different  dates  by  the  various  diets  of 
the  Austro-Hungarian  lands:  in  1713  by  Croatia,  and  from  1720  to  1724  by  the  other 
diets.  It  was  finally  proclaimed  a  fundamental  law  in  1724. 


450  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  the  kingdom  was  not  subverted;  it  was  simply  ignored.  The  Diet 
was  summoned  but  seldom,  and  after  1764  not  at  all.  Reforms  were 
introduced,  especially  in  connection  with  education,  but  through  the 
medium  of  royal  decrees  alone.  Joseph  II.  continued  nominally  the 
policy  of  enlightened  despotism,  but  in  so  tactless  a  manner  that  most 
of  his  projects  were  brought  to  nought.  Approaching  the  problem  of 
Hungarian  administration  with  his  accustomed  idealism,  he  undertook 
deliberately  to  sweep  away  not  only  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom 
but  the  whole  body  of  Hungarian  institutions  and  traditions.  He 
refused  even  to  be  crowned  king  of  Hungary  or  to  recognize  in  any 
manner  the  established  status  of  the  country.  His  purpose  was  clearly 
to  build  of  Austria  and  Hungary  one  consolidated  and  absolute  state — 
a  purpose  which,  it  need  hardly  be  remarked,  failed  of  realization. 
The  statesmanship  of  Leopold  II.  averted  the  impending  revolt.  The 
constitution  was  restored,  the  ancient  liberties  of  the  kingdom  were  con- 
firmed, and  it  was  agreed  that  the  Diet  should  be  assembled  regularly 
every  three  years.  Through  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  principal  interest 
of  Leopold's  successor,  Francis  II.  (I7Q2-I835),1  was  the  waging  of 
war  upon  revolutionary  France  and  upon  Napoleon,  and  during  this 
period  circumstances  conspired  to  cement  more  firmly  the  relations 
between  the  Hapsburg  monarchy  and  the  Hungarian  people.  In  Hun- 
gary, as  in  Austria,  the  time  was  one  of  political  stagnation.  Prior 
to  1811  the  Diet  was  several  times  convened,  but  never  for  any  purpose 
other  than  that  of  obtaining  war  subsidies. 

m.  THE  ERA  OF  METTERNICH 

In  the  thoroughgoing  reaction  which  set  in  with  the  Congress  of 
Vienna  it  fell  to  Austria  to  play  the  principal  role.  This  was  in  part 
because  the  dominions  of  the  Hapsburgs  had  emerged  from  the  revolu- 
tionary epoch  virtually  unscathed,  but  rather  more  by  reason  of  the 
remarkable  position  occupied  during  the  period  1815-1848  by 
Emperor  Francis  I.'s  minister  and  mentor,  Prince  Metternich.  Easily 
the  most  commanding  personality  in  Europe,  Metternich  was  at  the 
same  tune  the  moving  spirit  in  international  affairs  and  the  autocrat 
of  Austro-Hungarian  politics.  Within  both  spheres  he  was,  as  he 
declared  himself  to  be,  "the  man  of  the  status  quo."  Innovation  he 
abhorred;  immobility  he  glorified.  The  settlement  at  Vienna  he  re- 
garded as  essentially  his  own  handiwork,  and  all  that  that  settlement 
involved  he  proposed  to  safeguard  relentlessly.  Throughout  a  full 
generation  he  contrived,  with  consummate  skill,  to  dam  the  stream  of 
liberalism  in  more  than  half  of  Europe. 

1  As  emperor  of  Austria,  Francis  I.  (1804-1835). 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  451 

498.  Condition  of  the  Monarchy  in  1816. — In  the  dominions  of  the 
Hapsburgs  the  situation  was  peculiarly  such  as  to  render  all  change, 
from  the  point  of  view  of  Metternich,  revolutionary  and  ruinous.    In 
respect  to  territory  and  prestige  Austria  emerged  from  the  Napoleonic 
wars  with  a  distinctly  improved  status.    But  the  internal  condition  of 
the  monarchy,  now  as  ever,  imparted  a  forbidding  aspect  to  any  policy 
or  movement  which  should  give  promise  of  unsettling  in  the  minutest 
degree  the  delicate,  haphazard  balance  that  had  been  arrived  at  among 
the  multiplicity  of  races,  religions,  and  interests  represented  in  the 
Emperor's  dominions.  In  the  west  were  the  duchies,  essentially  German, 
which  comprised  the  ancestral  possessions  of  the  Hapsburg  dynasty; 
in  the  north  was  Bohemia,  comprising,  besides  Bohemia  proper,  Silesia, 
and  Moravia,  and  containing  a  population  largely  Czech;  to  the  south 
lay  the  lately  acquired  Italian  kingdom  of  Lombardo-Venetia;  to  the 
east  lay  the  kingdom  of  Hungary,  including  the  kingdom  of  Croatia 
and  the  principality  of  Transylvania,  with  a  population  preponderantly 
Slavic  but  dominated  politically  by  the  Magyars.    Several  of  these  com- 
ponent states  retained  privileges  which  were  peculiar  to  themselves  and 
were  bound  to  the  Hapsburg  monarchy  by  ties  that  were  at  best  pre- 
carious.    And  the  differences  everywhere  of  race,  religion,  language, 
tradition,  and  interest  were  such  as  to  create  for  the  Vienna  Govern- 
ment a  seemingly  impossible  task. 

So  decadent  and  ineffective  was  the  Austrian  administrative  sys- 
tem when  Metternich  entered,  in  1809,  upon  his  ministry  that  not 
even  he  could  have  supposed  that  change  would  not  eventually  have 
to  come.  Change,  however,  he  dreaded,  because  when  change  begins 
it  is  not  possible  to  foresee  how  far  it  will  go,  or  to  control  altogether 
the  course  it  shall  follow.  Change,  therefore,  Metternich  resisted  by 
every  available  means,  putting  off  at  least  as  long  as  might  be  the  evil 
day.  The  spirit  of  liberalism,  once  disseminated  throughout  the 
conglomerate  Empire,  might  be  expected  to  prompt  the  various 
nationalities  to  demand  constitutions;  constitutions  would  mean 
autonomy;  and  autonomy  might  well  mean  the  end  of  the  Empire 
itself.  Austria  entered  upon  the  post-Napoleonic  period  handicapped 
by  the  fact  that  the  principle  upon  which  Europe  during  the  nine- 
teenth century  was  to  solve  many  of  her  problems — the  principle  of 
nationality — contained  for  her  nought  but  the  menace  of  disintegra- 
tion. Conservatism,  as  one  writer  has  put  it,  was  imposed  upon  the 
Empire  by  the  very  conditions  of  its  being. 

499.  Metternich's  System:  the  Rise  of  Liberalism. — The  key  to 
Austrian  history  during  the  period  1815-1848  is,  then,  the  maxim  of  the 
Emperor  Francis, ' '  Govern  and  change  nothing. ' '   In  Hungary  govern- 


45 2  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ment  was  nominally  constitutional;  elsewhere  it  was  frankly  absolute. 
The  diets  of  the  component  parts  of  the  Empire  were  not  abolished, 
nor  were  the  estates  of  the  several  Austrian  provinces.  But,  consti- 
tuted as  they  generally  were  on  an  aristocratic  basis  and  convened  but 
irregularly  and  for  brief  periods,  their  existence  was  a  source  neither 
of  embarrassment  to  the  Government  nor  of  benefit  to  the  people. 
"I  also  have  my  Estates,"  declared  the  Emperor  upon  one  occasion. 
"I  have  maintained  their  constitution,  and  do  not  worry  them;  but 
if  they  go  too  far  I  snap  my  fingers  at  them  or  send  them  home."  The 
Diet  of  Hungary  was  not  once  convened  during  the  years  1812-1825. 
On  the  side  of  administration  Metternich  did  propose  that  the  various 
executive  departments,  hitherto  gathered  under  no  common  man- 
agement nor  correlated  in  any  degree  whatsoever,  should  be 
brought  under  the  supervision  of  a  single  minister.  But  not  even 
this  project  was  carried  out  effectively.  Throughout  the  period 
the  central  government  continued  cumbersome,  disjointed,  and  in- 
efficient. 

With  every  passing  decade  the  difficulties  of  the  Government  were 
augmented.  Despite  a  most  extraordinary  censorship  of  education 
and  of  the  press,  western  liberalism  crept  slowly  into  the  Empire  and 
the  spirit  of  disaffection  laid  hold  of  increasing  numbers  of  people. 
The  revolutions  of  1820  passed  without  eliciting  response;  those  of 
1830  occasioned  but  a  ripple.  But  during  the  decade  1830-1840,  and 
especially  after  1840,  the  growth  of  liberalism  was  rapid.  In  1835  the 
aged  Francis  I.  was  succeeded  by  Ferdinand  I.,  but  as  the  new  sov- 
ereign was  mentally  incapacitated  the  dominance  of  Metternich 
continued  unimpaired.1  In  Bohemia,  Hungary,  and  elsewhere  there 
were  revivals  of  racial  enthusiasm  and  of  nationalistic  aspirations 
which  grew  increasingly  ominous.  The  Hungarian  diet  of  1844  sub- 
stituted as  the  official  language  of  the  chambers  Magyar  for  Latin,  and 
during  the  forties  there  was  built  up,  under  the  leadership  of  Louis 
Kossuth  and  Francis  Deak,  a  flourishing  Liberal  party,  whose  aim  was 
the  re-establishment  of  the  autonomy  of  the  kingdom  and  the  thor- 
oughgoing reform  of  the  government.  By  1847-1848  this  party  was 
insisting  strenuously  upon  the  adoption  of  its  "Ten  Points,"  in  which 
were  included  a  responsible  ministry,  the  abolition  of  serfdom,  equality 
of  citizens  before  the  law,  complete  religious  liberty,  fuller  representa- 

1  Technically  the  control  of  the  government  was  vested  in  a  small  group  of 
dignitaries  known  as  the  Staatskonferenz,  or  State  Conference.  The  nominal 
president  of  this  body  was  the  Archduke  Louis,  representing  the  crown;  but 
the  actual  direction  of  its  proceedings  fell  to  Metternich.  H.  von  Sybel,  Die 
Osterreichische  Staatskonferenz  von  1836,  in  Historische  Zettschrift,  1877. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  453 

tion  in  the  Diet,  taxation  of  the  nobles,  and  control  by  the  Diet  of 
all  public  expenditures.1 

IV.  THE  REVOLUTION  OF  1848 

500.  The  Fall  of  Metternich.— The  crash  came  in  1848.  Under  the 
electrifying  effect  of  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Louis  Philippe  at  Paris 
(February  24),  and  of  the  eloquent  fulminations  of  Kossuth,  translated 
into  German  and  scattered  broadcast  in  the  Austrian  capital,  there 
broke  out  at  Vienna,  March  12-13,  an  insurrection  which  instantly 
got  quite  beyond  the  Government's  power  to  control.  Hard  righting 
took  place  between  the  troops  and  the  populace,  and  an  infuriated 
mob,  breaking  into  the  royal  palace,  called  with  an  insistence  that 
would  not  be  denied  for  the  dismissal  of  Metternich.  Recognizing  the 
uselessness  of  resistance,  the  minister  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Em- 
peror his  resignation  and,  effecting  an  escape  from  the  city,  made  his 
way  out  of  the  country  and  eventually  to  England.  March  15  there 
was  issued  a  hurriedly  devised  Imperial  proclamation,  designed  to 
appease  the  populace,  in  which  was  promised  the  convocation  of  an 
assembly  with  a  view  to  the  drafting  of  a  national  constitution. 

601.  Hungary:  the  March  Laws. — On  the  same  day  the  Diet  of 
Hungary,  impelled  by  the  oratory  of  Kossuth,  began  the  enactment  of 
an  elaborate  series  of  measures — the  so-called  March  Laws — by  which 
was  carried  rapidly  toward  completion  a  programme  of  modernization 
which,  in  the  teeth  of  Austrian  opposition,  had  been  during  some  years 
under  way.  The  March  Laws  fell  into  two  principal  categories.  The 
first  dealt  with  the  internal  government  of  the  kingdom,  the  second 
with  the  relations  which  henceforth  were  to  subsist  between  Hungary 
and  the  Austrian  Empire.  For  the  ancient  aristocratic  machinery  of 
the  monarchy  was  substituted  a  modern  constitutional  system  of 
government,  with  a  diet  whose  lower  chamber,  of  337  members,  was 
to  be  elected  by  all  Hungarians  of  the  age  of  twenty  who  possessed 
property  to  the  value  of  approximately  $150.  Meetings  of  this  diet 
were  to  be  annual  and  were  to  be  held,  no  longer  at  Pressburg,  near  the 
Austrian  border,  but  at  the  interior  city  of  Budapest,  the  logical  capital 
of  the  kingdom.  Taxation  was  extended  to  all  classes;  feudal  serv- 
itudes and  titles  payable  by  the  peasantry  were  abolished;  trial  by 
jury,  religious  liberty,  and  freedom  of  the  press  were  guaranteed.  In 

1  On  Austria  during  the  period  of  Metternich  see  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
X.,  Chap,  n,  XL,  Chap.  3;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generale,  X.,  Chap.  17; 
A.  Stern,  Geschichte  Europas  (Berlin,  1904-1911),  I.,  Chap.  3;  A.  Springer,  Ge- 
schichte  Osterreichs  seit  dem  Wiener  Frieden  1809  (Leipzig,  1863),  I.,  275-322;  H. 
Meynert,  Kaiser  Franz  I.  (Vienna,  1872). 


454  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  second  place,  it  was  stipulated  that  henceforth  Hungary  should 
have  an  entirely  separate  and  a  responsible  ministry,  thus  ensuring 
the  essential  autonomy  of  the  kingdom.  The  sole  tie  remaining  be- 
tween the  two  monarchies  was  to  be  the  person  of  the  sovereign. 
Impelled  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  the  Government  at  Vienna 
designated  Count  Louis  Batthyany  premier  of  the  first  responsible 
Hungarian  ministry  and,  April  10,  accorded  reluctant  assent  to  the 
March  Laws.  These  statutes,  though  later  subverted,  became  thence- 
forth the  Grundrechte  of  the  Hungarian  people. 

602.  The  Austrian  Constitution  of  1848. — In  the  meantime,  the 
Austrians  were  pressing  their  demand  for  constitutionalism.  The 
framing  of  the  instrument  which  had  been  promised  was  intrusted 
by  the  Emperor  to  the  ministers,  and  early  in  April  there  was  sub- 
mitted to  an  informal  gathering  of  thirty  notables  representing  various 
portions  of  the  Empire  a  draft  based  upon  the  Belgium  constitution  of 
1831.  This  instrument  was  given  some  consideration  in  several  of 
the  provincial  diets,  but  was  never  submitted,  as  it  had  been  promised 
in  the  manifesto  of  March  15  it  should  be,  to  the  Imperial  Diet,  or  to 
any  sort  of  national  assembly.  Instead  it  was  promulgated,  April  25, 
on  the  sole  authority  of  the  Emperor.  The  territories  to  which 
it  was  made  applicable  comprised  the  whole  of  the  Emperor's  domin- 
ions, save  Hungary  and  the  other  Transleithanian  lands  and  the 
Italian  dependencies.  By  it  the  Empire  was  declared  an  indissoluble 
constitutional  monarchy,  and  to  all  citizens  were  extended  full  rights 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  There  was  instituted  a  Reichstag,  or 
generaljiiet^  to  consist  of  an  upper  house  of  princes  of  the  royal  family 
and  nominees  of  the  landlords,  and  a  lower-of  383  members,  to  be 
elected  according  to  a  system  to  be  devised  by  the  l^eicflstafi  Itself. 
All  ministers  were  to  be  responsible  to  this  diet.  July  22  there  was 
convened  at  Vienna  the  first  assembly  of  the  new  type,  and  the  or- 
ganization of  constitutional  government  was  put  definitely  under  way. 

503.  The  Reaction. — Recovery,  however,  on  the  part  of  the  forces 
of  reaction  was  rapid.  In  Hungary  the  same  sort  of  nationalistic 
feeling  that  had  inspired  the  Magyars  to  assert  their  rights  as  against 
Austria  inspired  the  Serbs,  the  Croats,  and  the  Roumanians  to  demand 
from  the  Magyar  Government  a  recognition  of  their  several  traditions 
and  interests.  The  purpose  of  the  Magyars,  however,  was  to  main- 
tain absolutely  their  own  ascendancy  in  the  kingdom,  and  every  de- 
mand on  the  part  of  the  subject  nationalities  met  only  with  contemp- 
tuous refusal.  Dissatisfaction  bred  dissension,  and  dissension  broke 
speedily  into  civil  war.  With  consummate  skill  the  situation  was 
exploited  by  the  Vienna  Government,  while  at  the  same  time  the 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  455 

armies  of  Radetzky  and  Windischgratz  were  stamping  out  every 
trace  of  insurrection  in  Lombardo-Venetia,  in  Bohemia,  and  eventu- 
ally in  Vienna  itself.  December  2,  1848,  the  easy-going,  incompetent 
Emperor  Ferdinand  was  induced  by  the  reactionaries  to  abdicate. 
His  brother,  Francis  Charles,  the  heir-presumptive,  renounced  his 
claim  to  the  throne,  and  the  crown  devolved  upon  the  late  Emperor's 
youthful  nephew,  Francis  Joseph  I.,  whose  phenomenally  prolonged 
reign  has  continued  to  the  present  day.  Under  the  guidance  of 
Schwarzenberg,  who  now  became  the  dominating  figure  in  Austrian 
politics,  the  Hungarian  March  Laws  were  abrogated  and  preparations 
were  set  on  foot  to  reduce  Hungary,  as  other  portions  of  the  Imperial 
dominions  had  been  reduced,  by  force  of  arms.  Pronouncing  Francis 
Joseph  a  usurper,  the  Magyars  rose  en  masse  in  defense  of  their  con- 
stitution and  of  the  deposeoTFerdinand.  In  the  conflict  which  ensued 
they  were  compelled  to  fight  not  only  the  Austrians  but  also  their 
rebellious  Roumanian,  Croatian,  and  Slavonian  subjects,  and  their 
chances  of  success  were  from  the  outset  slender.  In  a  moment  of 
exultation,  April  14,  1849,  the  Diet  at  Budapest  went  so  far  as  to  de- 
clare Hungary  an  independent  nation  and  to  elect  Kossuth  to  the 
presidency  of  a  supposititious  republic.  The  only  effect,  however,  was 
to  impart  to  the  contest  an  international  character.  Upon  appeal 
from  Francis  Joseph,  Tsar  Nicholas  I.  intervened  in  behalf  of  the 
" legitimate"  Austrian  power;  whereupon  the  Hungarians,  seeking  in 
vain  for  allies,  were  overcome  by  the  weight  of  the  odds  against  them, 
and  by  the  middle  of  August,  1849,  the  war  was  ended. 

604.  Restoration  of  Autocracy. — In  Austria  and  Hungary  alike  the 
reaction  was  complete.  In  the  Empire  there  had  been  promulgated, 
March  4,  1849,  a  revised  constitution;  but  at  no  tune  had  it  been  in- 
tended by  the  sovereign  or  by  those  who  surrounded  him  that  con- 
stitutionalism should  be  established  upon  a  permanent  basis,  and  during 
1850-1851  one  step  after  another  was  taken  in  the  direction  of  the  re- 
vival of  autocracy.  December  3 1 , 185 1 ,  "  in  the  name  of  the  unity  of  the 
Empire  and  of  monarchical  principles,"  the  constitution  was  revoked 
by  Imperial  patent.  At  a  stroke  all  of  the  peoples  of  the  Empire  were 
deprived  of  their  representative  rights.  Yet  so  incompletely  had  the 
liberal  regime  struck  root  that  its  passing  occasioned  scarcely  a  murmur. 
Except  that  the  abolition  of  feudal  obligations  was  permanent,  the  Em- 
pire settled  back  into  a  status  which  was  almost  precisely  that  of  the 
age  of  Metternich.  Vienna  became  once  more  the  seat  of  a  government 
whose  fundamental  objects  may  be  summarized  as  (i)  to  Germanize 
the  Magyars  and  Slavs,  (2)  to  restrain  all  agitation  in  behalf  of  con- 
stitutionalism; and  (3)  to  prevent  freedom  of  thought  and  the  establish- 


456  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ment  of  a  free  press.  Hungary,  by  reason  of  her  rebellion,  was  con- 
sidered to  have  forfeited  utterly  the  fundamental  rights  which  for 
centuries  had  been  more  or  less  grudgingly  conceded  her.  She  not  only 
lost  every  vestige  of  her  constitutional  system,  her  diet,  her  county 
assemblies,  her  local  self-government;  large  territories  were  stripped 
from  her,  and  she  was  herself  cut  into  five  districts,  each  to  be  ad- 
ministered separately,  largely  by  German  officials  from  Vienna.  So 
far  as  possible,  all  traces  of  her  historic  nationality  were  obliterated.1 

V.  THE  REVIVAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONALISM:  THE  AUSGLEICH 

605.  Constitutional  Experiments,  1860-1861. — The  decade  1850- 
1860  was  in  Austria-Hungary  a  period  of  political  and  intellectual  torpor. 
Embarrassed  by  fiscal  difficulties  and  by  international  complications, 
the  Government  at  Vienna  struggled  with  desperation  to  maintain 
the  status  quo  as  against  the  numerous  forces  that  would  have  overthrown 
it.  For  a  time  the  effort  was  successful,  but  toward  the  close  of  the 
decade  a  swift  decline  of  Imperial  prestige  compelled  the  adoption  of 
a  more  conciliatory  policy.  The  Crimean  War  cost  the  Empire  both 
allies  and  friends,  and  the  disasters  of  the  Italian  campaigns  of  1859 
added  to  the  seriousness  of  the  Imperial  position.  By  1860  both  the 
Emperor  and  his  principal  minister,  Goluchowski,  were  prepared  to  un- 
dertake in  all  sincerity  a  reformation  of  the  illiberal  and  unpopular  gov- 
ernmental system.  To  this  end  the  Emperor  called  together,  March  5, 
1860,  representatives  of  the  various  provinces  and  instructed  them, 
in  conjunction  with  the  Reichsrath,  or  Imperial  Council,  to  take  under 
consideration  plans  for  the  reorganization  of  the  Empire.  The  majority 
of  this  "reinforced  Reichsrath"  recommended  the  establishment  perma- 
nently of  a  broadly  national  Reichsrath,  or  Imperial  assembly,  together 
with  the  reconstitution  of  the  old  provincial  diets.  The  upshot  was  the 
promulgation,  October  20,  1860,  of  a  "permanent  and  irrevocable" 
diploma  in  which  the  Emperor  made  known  his  intention  thereafter 
to  share  all  powers  of  legislation  and  finance  with  the  diets  of  the  various 

1  Brief  accounts  of  the  revolution  of  1848-1849  in  Austria-Hungary  will  be  found 
in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chaps.  6-7  (bibliography,  pp.  887-893),  and 
Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Gene"rale,  XI.,  Chap.  4.  The  most  important 
treatise  is  H.  Friedjung,  Osterreich  von  1848  bis  1860  (2d  ed.,  Stuttgart  and  Berlin, 
1908),  the  first  volume  of  which  covers  the  period  1848-1851.  There  is  a  serviceable 
account  in  L.  Leger,  History  of  Austria-Hungary  from  the  Beginning  to  the  Year 
1878,  trans,  by  B.  Hill  (London,  1889),  Chaps.  30-33.  Older  accounts  in  English  in- 
clude W.  H.  Stiles,  Austria  in  1848-9  (New  York,  1852),  and  W.  Coxe,  History  of  the 
House  of  Austria  (3d  ed.,  London,  1907).  The  Hungarian  phases  of  the  subject  are 
admirably  presented  in  L.  Eisenmann,  Le  compromis  austro-hongroise  (Paris, 
1904). 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  457 

portions  of  the  Empire,  and  with  a  central  Reichsrath  at  Vienna,  the 
latter  to  be  made  up  of  members  chosen  by  the  Emperor  from  triple 
lists  of  nominees  presented  by  the  provincial  diets. 

In  Hungary  this  programme  was  received  with  favor  by  the  conserva- 
tive magnates,  but  the  Liberals,  led  by  Deak,  refused  absolutely  to  ap- 
prove it,  save  on  the  condition  that  the  constitutional  regime  of  the  king- 
dom, abrogated  in  1849,  should  be  regarded  as  completely  restored.  At 
Vienna  there  had  been  no  intention  that  the  proposed  innovation  should  , 
entail  such  consequences,  and  within  four  months  of  its  promulgation 
the  diploma  of  1860  was  superseded  by  a  patent  of  February  26,  1861, 
whereby  the  terms  demanded  by  the  Deak  party  were  specifically  denied. 
In  this  patent — the  handiwork  principally  of  Anton  von  Schmerling, 
Goluchowski's  successor  in  the  office  of  Minister  of  the  Interior — was 
elaborated  further  the  plan  of  the  new  Reichsrath.  Two  chambers  there 
were  to  be — an  upper,  or  House  of  Lords,  to  be  made  up  of  members 
appointed  by  the  Emperor  in  consideration  of  birth,  station,  or  merit, 
and  a  lower,  or  House  of  Representatives,  to  consist  of  343  members  \^ 
(Hungary  sending  85  and  Bohemia  54),  to  be  chosen  by  the  provincial 
diets  from  their  own  membership.  Sessions  of  the  body  were  to  be 
annual.  The  new  instrument  differed  fundamentally  from  the  old,  not 
simply  in  that  it  substituted  a  bicameral  for  a  unicameral  parliamentary 
body,  but  also  in  that  it  diverted  from  the  local  diets  to  the  Reichsrath 
a  wide  range  of  powers,  being  designed,  indeed,  specifically  to  facilitate 
the  centralization  of  governmental  authority. 

606.  The  Hungarian  Opposition. — By  reason  chiefly  of  the  refusal 
of  the  Deak  party  to  accept  for  Hungary  anything  short  of  the  autonomy 
which  had  been  enjoyed  prior  to  1849,  the  new  scheme  of  government 
was  for  a  time  only  partially  successful.  In  one  after  another  of  the  com- 
ponent parts  of  the  Empire  the  provincial  diets  were  called  back  to  life, 
and  the  Reichsrath  itself  was  started  upon  its  career.  But  the  Hunga- 
rians held  aloof.  The  position  which  they  assumed  was  that  Hungary 
had  always  been  a  separate  nation;  that  the  union  with  Austria  lay  only 
through  the  person  of  the  monarch,  who,  indeed,  in  Hungary  was  king 
only  after  he  should  have  sworn  to  uphold  the  ancient  laws  of  Hungary 
and  should  have  been  crowned  in  Hungary  with  the  iron  crown  of  St. 
Stephen;  that  no  change  in  these  ancient  laws  and  practices  could 
legally  be  effected  by  the  emperor-king  alone;  that  the  constitution 
of  i86i.was  inadequate,  not  only  because  it  had  been  "granted"  and 
might  as  easily  be  revoked,  but  because  it  covered  both  Austria  and 
Hungary,  reduced  Hungary  to  the  position  of  a  mere  province,  and 
was  not  at  all  identical  with  the  Hungarian  fundamental  law  abrogated 
in  1849.  April  6, 1861,  the  Hungarian  Diet  was  assembled  for  the  first 


45$  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

time  since  the  termination  of  the  revolution  of  1848,  and  the  patent  of 
the  preceding  February  26  was  laid  forthwith  before  it.  After  four 
months  of  heated  debate  the  body  refused  definitely  to  accept  the 
instrument  and,  on  the  contrary,  adopted  unanimously  an  address 
drawn  up  by  Deak  calling  upon  the  Vienna  authorities  to  restore  the 
political  and  territorial  integrity  of  the  Hungarian  kingdom.  The 
sovereign's  reply  was  a  dissolution  of  the  Diet,  August  21,  and  a  levy  of 
taxes  by  military  execution.  Hungary,  in  turn,  refused  to  be  represented 
in  the  Reichsrath,  or  in  any  way  to  recognize  the  new  order. 

507.  Influences  toward  Conciliation. — Through  four  years  the  dead- 
lock continued.    During  the  period  Hungary,  regarded  by  the  authori- 
ties at  Vienna  as  having  forfeited  the  last  vestige  of  right  to  her  ancient 
constitution,  was  kept  perpetually  in  a  stage  of  siege.    As  time  went 
by,  however,  it  was  made  increasingly  apparent  that  the  surrender  by 
which  concord  might  be  restored  would  have  to  be  made  in  the  main 
by  Austria,  and  at  last  the  Emperor  was  brought  to  a  point  where  he 
was  willing,  by  an  effectual  recognition  of  Hungarian  nationality,  to 
supply  the  indispensable  condition  of  reconciliation.    In  June,  1865, 
the  sovereign  paid  a  visit  to  the  Hungarian  capital,  where  he  was  re- 
ceived with  unexpected  enthusiasm,  and  September  20  the  patent  of 
1 86 1,  which  the  Hungarians  had  refused  to  allow  to  be  put  into  exe- 
cution, was  suspended.    For  the  moment  the  whole  of  the  Hapsburg 
dominion  reverted  to  a  state  of  absolutism;  but  negotiations  were  set 
on  foot  looking  toward  a  revival  of  constitutionalism  under  such  con- 
ditions that  the  demands  of  the  Hungarians  might  be  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  larger  interests  of  the  Empire.    Proceedings  were 
interrupted,  in  1866,  by  the  Austro-Prussian  war,  but  in  1867  they  were 
pushed  to  a  conclusion.    In  anticipation  of  the  international  outbreak 
which  came  in  June,  1866,  Deak  had  reworked  a  programme  of  con- 
ciliation drawn  up  in  the  spring  of  1865,  holding  it  in  readiness  to  be 
employed  as  a  basis  of  negotiation  in  the  event  of  an  Austrian  triumph, 
as  an  ultimatum  in  the  event  of  an  Austrian  defeat.    The  Austrians, 
as  it  proved,  were  defeated  swiftly  and  decisively,  and  by  this  de- 
velopment the  Hungarians,  as  Deak  had  hoped  would  be  the  case,  were 
given  an  enormously  advantageous  position.     Humiliated  by  her  ex- 
pulsion from  a  confederation  which  she  had  been  accustomed  to  dom- 
inate, Austria,  after  the  Peace  of  Prague  (August  20,  1866),  was  no 
longer  in  a  position  to  defy  the  wishes  of  her  disaffected  sister  state. 
On  the  contrary,  the  necessity  of  the  consolidation  of  her  resources  was 
never  more  apparent. 

508.  The  Compromise  Effected,  1867. — July  3  occurred  the  disaster 
at  Sadowa.    July  15  the  Emperor  summoned  Deak  to  Vienna  and  put 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY  PRIOR  TO  THE  AUSGLEICH  459 

to  him  directly  the  question,  What  does  Hungary  want?  Two  days 
later  he  accorded  provisional  assent  to  the  fundamentals  of  the  Deak 
projet  and  designated  as  premier  of  the  first  parliamentary  ministry 
of  Hungary  Count  Julius  Andrassy.  The  working  out  of  the  precise 
settlement  between  the  two  states  fell  principally  to  two  men — Deak, 
representing  the  Hungarian  Liberals,  and  Baron  Beust,  formerly  chief 
minister  of  the  king  of  Saxony  but  in  1866  brought  to  Vienna  and  made 
Austrian  chancellor  and  minister-president.  After  prolonged  negotia- 
tion a  projet,  differing  from  the  original  one  of  Deak  in  few  respects 
save  that  the  unity  of  the  monarchy  was  more  carefully  safeguarded, 
was  made  ready  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  parliaments  of  the  two  states. 
February  17,  1867,  the  Andrassy  ministry  was  formed  at  Budapest 
and  May  29,  by  a  vote  of  209  to  89,  the  terms  of  the  Ausgleich,  or  Com- 
promise, were  given  formal  approval  by  the  Diet.  At  Vienna  the 
Reichsrath  would  probably  have  been  disposed  to  reject  the  proposed 
arrangement  but  for  the  fact  that  Beust  held  out  as  an  inducement  the 
re-establishment  of  constitutionalism  in  Austria.  The  upshot  was  that 
the  Reichsrath  added  some  features  by  which  the  projet  was  liberalized 
still  further  and  made  provision  at  the  same  time  for  the  revision  and 
rehabilitation  of  the  Imperial  patent  of  1861.  During  the  summer 
two  deputations  of  fifteen  members  each,  representing  the  respective 
parliaments,  drew  up  a  plan  of  financial  adjustment  between  the  two 
states;  and  by  acts  of  December  21-24  final  approval  was  accorded  on 
both  sides  to  the  whole  body  of  agreements.  Already,  June  8,  in  the 
great  cathedral  at  Buda,  Francis  Joseph  had  been  crowned  Apostolic 
King  of  Hungary  and  the  royal  succession  under  the  terms  of  the 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  1713,  after  eighteen  years  of  suspension,  had 
been  definitely  resumed.1 

1  On  Austro-Hungarian  affairs  in  the  period  1860-1867  see  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  XI.,  Chap.  15,  XII.,  Chap.  7  (bibliography,  pp.  876-882),  and  Lavisse  et 
Rambaud,  Histoire  Ge'ne'rale,  XI.,  Chap.  13.  The  best  treatise  is  L.  Eisemann, 
Le  compromis  austro-hongroise  (Paris,  1904). _  An  account  by  an  active  partici- 
pant is  J.  Andrdssy,  Ungarns  Ausgleich  mit  Osterreich  von  Jahre  1867  (Leipzig, 
1897).  The  best  detailed  account  in  English  is  Leger,  History  of  Austria-Hungary, 
Chaps.  34-35.  Two  important  biographies  are:  A.  Forster,  Francis  Dedk,  a 
Memoir  (London,  1880),  and  E.  Ebeling,  F.  F.  Graf  von  Beust  (Leipzig,  1870-71). 


CHAPTER  XXV 
THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA 

I.  THE  CONSTITUTION 

609.  Texts. — The  fundamental  law  of  the  Austrian  Empire,1  in  so 
lar  as  it  has  been  reduced  to  writing,  exists  in  the  form  of  a  series  of 
diplomas,  patents,  and  statutes  covering,  in  all,  a  period  of  some  two 
hundred  years.  Of  these  instruments  the  most  important  are:  (i)  the 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  the  Emperor  Charles  VI.,  promulgated  orig- 
inally April  19,  1713,  and  in  final  form  in  1724,  by  which  is  regulated 
the  succession  to  the  throne;  (2)  the  Pragmatic  Patent  of  the  Em- 
peror Francis  II.,  August  i,  1804,  in  accordance  with  which  the  sov- 
ereign bears  in  Austria  the  Imperial  title;  (3)  the  diploma  of  the 
Emperor  Francis  Joseph  I.,  October  20, 1860,  by  which  was  introduced 
in  the  Empire  the  principle  of  constitutional  government;  (4)  the  pat- 
ent of  Francis  Joseph,  February  26,  1861,  by  which  was  regulated  in 
detail  the  nature  of  this  government;  and  (5)  a  series  of  five  funda- 
mental laws  (Staatsgrundgesetze),  all  bearing  the  date  December  21, 
1867,  and  comprising  a  thoroughgoing  revision  and  extension  of  the 
patent  of  1861.  In  a  narrower  sense,  indeed,  the  constitution  may  be 
said  to  consist  of  these  five  documents,  all  of  which  were  sanctioned  by 
the  crown  as  a  portion  of  the  same  general  settlement  by  which  the 
arrangements  comprehended  in  the  Ausgleich  were  effected.  Of  them, 
one,  in  twenty  articles,  is  essentially  a  bill  of  rights;  a  second,  in 
twenty-four  sections,  is  concerned  with  Imperial  representation;  a 
third,  in  six  articles,  provides  for  the  establishment  of  the  Reichs- 
gericht,  or  Imperial  court;  a  fourth,  in  fifteen  articles,  covers  the  sub- 
ject of  the  judiciary;  and  the  fifth,  in  twelve  articles,  deals  with  the 
exercise  of  administrative  and  executive  powers. 

510.  The  Style  of  Government. — Under  the  provisions  of  these 
instruments  Austria  is  constituted  a  limited  monarchy,  with  a  respon- 

1  It  should  be  emphasized  that  the  phrase  "Austrian  Empire,"  properly  used, 
denotes  Austria  alone.  Hungary  is  no  part  of  the  Empire.  Throughout  the  follow- 
ing description  effort  has  been  made  to  avoid  inaccuracy  of  expression  by  referring 
to  Austria-Hungary  as  the  "dual  monarchy,"  or  simply  as  "the  monarchy."  The 
nomenclature  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  union  is  cumbersome,  but  therein  it  merely 
reflects  the  character  of  the  union  itself. 

460 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  461 

sible  ministry,  a  bicameral  legislative  body,  and  a  considerable  meas- 
ure of  local  self-government.  For  the  exercise,  upon  occasion,  of 
essentially  autocratic  power,  however,  the  way  was  left  open  through 
the  famous  Section  13  of  the  patent  of  1861,  become  Section  14  of  the 
Law  concerning  Imperial  Representation  of  1867.  Around  no  portion 
of  the  constitution  has  controversy  raged  more  fiercely  during  the 
past  generation.  The  article  reads:  "If  urgent  circumstances  should 
render  necessary  some  measure  constitutionally  requiring  the  consent 
of  the  Reichsrath,  when  that  body  is  not  in  session,  such  measure  may 
be  taken  by  Imperial  ordinance,  issued  under  the  collective  responsi- 
bility of  the  ministry,  provided  it  makes  no  alteration  of  the  funda- 
mental law,  imposes  no  lasting  burden  upon  the  public  treasury,  and 
alienates  none  of  the  domain  of  the  state.  Such  ordinances  shall  have 
provisionally  the  force  of  law,  if  they  are  signed  by  all  of  the  ministers, 
and  shall  be  published  with  an  express  reference  to  this  provision  of  the 
fundamental  law.  The  legal  force  of  such  an  ordinance  shall  cease 
if  the  Government  neglects  to  present  it  for  the  approval  of  the 
Reichsrath  at  its  next  succeeding  session,  and  indeed  first  to  the  House 
of  Representatives,  within  four  weeks  of  its  convention,  or  if  one  of 
the  houses  refuses  its  approval  thereto."  *  The  prolonged  exercise  of 
autocratic  power  might  seem  here  to  be  sufficiently  guarded  against, 
but  in  point  of  fact,  as  was  demonstrated  by  the  history  of  the  notable 
parliamentary  deadlock  of  1897-1 904,2  the  government  can  be,  and 
has  been,  made  to  run  year  after  year  upon  virtually  the  sole  basis 
of  the  article  mentioned.  It  is  only  fair  to  add,  however,  that,  but  for 
some  such  practical  resource  at  the  disposal  of  the  executive,  con- 
stitutional government  might  long  since  have  been  broken  down  com- 
pletely by  the  recurrent  obstructive  tactics  of  the  warring  nation- 
alities. 

511.  Amendment. — The  constitution  promulgated  March  4,  1849, 
made  provision  for  a  definite  process  of  amendment.  Upon  declara- 
tion by  the  legislative  power  that  any  particular  portion  of  the  funda- 
mental law  stood  in  need  of  revision,  the  chambers  were  to  be  dis- 
solved and  newly  elected  ones  were  to  take  under  consideration  the 
proposed  amendment,  adopting  it  if  a  two-thirds  majority  could  be 
obtained  in  each  house.  Upon  all  such  proposals  the  veto  of  the 
Emperor,  however,  was  absolute.  Neither  the  diploma  of  October  20, 
1860,  nor  the  patent  of  February  26,  1861,  contained  any  stipulation 
upon  the  subject,  nor  did  any  one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  1867 
as  originally  adopted.  By  act  of  April  2,  1873,  however,  passed  at 

1  Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I.,  81. 

2  See  p.  479. 


462  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  time  when  the  lower  house  of  the  Reichsrath  was  being  converted 
into  an  assembly  directly  representative  of  the  people,  the  Law  con- 
cerning Imperial  Representation  was  so  modified  as  to  be  made  to  in- 
clude a  specific  stipulation  with  respect  to  constitutional  amendment  in 
general.  Under  the  terms  of  this  enactment  all  portions  of  the  written 
constitution  are  subject  to  amendment  at  the  hand  of  the  Reichsrath. 
As  in  European  countries  generally,  no  essential  differentiation  of 
powers  that  are  constituent  from  those  that  are  legislative  is  attempted. 
The  process  of  revision  is  made  even  easier  than  that  prescribed  by  the 
ill-fated  instrument  of  1849.  It  differs  in  no  respect  from  that  of 
ordinary  legislation  save  that  proposed  amendments  require  a  two- 
thirds  vote  in  each  of  the  chambers  instead  of  a  simple  majority. 
Since  1873  there  have  been  adopted  several  amendments,  of  which 
the  most  notable  were  those  of  1896  and  1907  relative  to  the  election 
of  representatives. 

612.  The  Rights  of  Citizens. — For  all  natives  of  the  various  king- 
doms and  countries  represented  in  the  Reichsrath  there  exists  a  com- 
mon right  of  Austrian  citizenship.  The  complicated  conditions  under 
which  citizenship  may  be  obtained,  exercised,  and  forfeited  are  pre- 
scribed in  legislative  enactments  of  various  dates.  One  of  the  five 
fundamental  laws  of  1867,  however,  covers  at  some  length  the  general 
rights  of  citizens,  and  certain  of  its  provisions  are  worthy  of  mention.1 
All  citizens,  it  is  declared,  are  equal  before  the  law.  Public  office  is 
open  equally  to  all.  Freedom  of  passage  of  persons  and  property, 
within  the  territory  of  the  state,  is  absolutely  guaranteed,  as  is  both 
liberty  of  person  and  inviolability  of  property.  Every  one  is  declared 
free  to  choose  his  occupation  and  to  prepare  himself  for  it  in  such  place 
and  manner  as  he  may  desire.  The  right  of  petition  is  recognized; 
likewise,  under  legal  regulation,  that  of  assemblage  and  of  the  forma- 
tion of  associations.  Freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  under  legal 
regulation,  and  liberty  of  religion  and  of  conscience  are  guaranteed  to 
all.  Science  and  its  teaching  is  declared  free.  One  has  but  to  recall 
the  repression  of  individual  liberty  and  initiative  by  which  the  era  of 
Metternich  was  characterized  to  understand  why,  with  the  liberalizing 
of  the  Austrian  state  under  the  constitution  of  1867,  it  should  have 
been  deemed  essential  to  put  into  the  fundamental  law  these  and 
similar  guarantees  of  personal  right  and  privilege.2 

1  Law  concerning  the  General  Rights  of  Citizens.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I.,  71-74. 

2  The  texts  of  the  fundamental  laws  at  present  in  operation  are  printed  in  E. 
Bernatzik,  Die  osterreichischen  Verfassungsgesetze  (2d  ed.,  Vienna,  1911),  and  in  a 
collection  issued  by  the  Austrian  Government  under  the  title  Die  Staatsgrundgesetze 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  463 

II.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

613.  The  Emperor's  Status. — The  sovereign  authority  of  the  Em- 
pire is  vested  in  the  Emperor.    Duties  are  assigned  to  the  ministers, 
and  privileges  are  granted  to  the  legislative  bodies ;  but  all  powers  not 
expressly  conferred  elsewhere  remain  with  the  Emperor  as  supreme 
head  of  the  state.    The  Imperial  office  is  hereditary  in  the  male  line  of 
the  house  of  Hapsburg-Lothringen,  and  the  rules  governing  the  suc- 
cession are  substantially  those  which  were  laid  down  originally  in  the 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  1713  1  promulgated  by  the  Emperor  Charles  VI. 
to  render  possible  the  succession  of  his  daughter  Maria  Theresa. 
Females  may  inherit,  but  only  in  the  event  of  the  failure  of  male  heirs. 
By  the  abdication  of  the  direct  heir,  the  throne  may  pass  to  a  member 
of  the  royal  family  who  stands  farther  removed,  as  it  did  in  1848  when 
the  present  Emperor  was  established  on  the  throne  while  his  father 
was  yet  living.    By  reason  of  the  unusual  prolongation  of  the  reign 
of  Francis  Joseph,  there  has  been  no  opportunity  in  sixty  years  to 
put  to  a  test  the  rules  by  which  the  inheritance  is  regulated.    Since 
the  death  of  the  Crown  Prince  Rudolph  the  heir-presumptive  has  been 
the  Archduke  Francis  Ferdinand,  son  of  the  Archduke  Charles  Louis, 
and  nephew  of  the  ruling  Emperor.    It  is  required  that  the  sovereign 
be  a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

614.  His  Powers. — By  fundamental  law  it  is  declared  that  the 
Emperor  is  "sacred,  inviolable,  and  irresponsible."    His  powers  of 
government  are  exercised  largely,  however,  through  ministers  who  are 
at  least  nominally  responsible  to  the  Reichsrath,  and  through  officers 
and  agents  subordinate  to  them.    Most  important  among  the  powers 
expressly  conferred  upon  the  Emperor,  and  indirectly  exercised  by 
him,  are:  (i)  the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  ministers;  (2)  the  nam- 
ing of  all  public  officials  whose  appointment  is  not  otherwise  by  law 
provided  for;  (3)  supreme  command  of  the  armed  forces,  with  the 

(7th  ed.,  Vienna,  1900).  The  statutes  of  1867  are  in  Lowell,  Governments  and 
Parties,  II.,  378-404,  and,  in  English  translation,  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I.,  71-89.  The  best  description  in  English  of  the  Austrian  governmental  system  is 
Lowell,  op.  cit.,  II.,  Chap.  8.  The  best  extended  treatise  is  J.  Ulbrich,  Lehrbuch 
des  osterreichischen  Staatsrechts  (Vienna,  1883).  Excellent  briefer  works  are 
L.  Gumplowicz,  Das  osterreichische  Staatsrecht  (3d  ed.,  Vienna,  1907);  J.  Ulbrich, 
Osterreichisches  Staatsrecht  (3d  ed.,  Tubingen,  1004),  in  Marquardsen's  Hand- 
buch;  and  R.  von  Herrnritt,  Handbuch  des  osterreichischen  Verfassungsrechtes 
(Tubingen,  1910).  On  the  workings  of  the  governmental  system  something  may  be 
gleaned  from  G.  Drage,  Austria-Hungary  (London,  1909);  S.  Whitman,  Austria 
(New  York,  1879)  and  H.  Rumbold,  Francis  Joseph  and  his  Times  (New  York, 
1909). 

1  Issued  definitely  in  1724. 


464  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

power  of  declaring  war  and  concluding  peace;  (4)  the  conferring  ot 
titles,  orders,  and  other  public  distinctions,  including  the  appointment 
of  life  peers;  (5)  the  granting  of  pardons  and  of  amnesty;  (6)  the  sum- 
moning, adjourning,  and  dissolving  of  the  various  legislative  bodies; 
^7)  the  issuing  of  ordinances  with  the  provisional  force  of  law,  and 
(8)  the  concluding  of  treaties,  with  the  limitation  that  the  consent  of 
the  Reichsrath  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  treaties  of  commerce  and 
political  treaties  which  impose  obligations  upon  the  Empire,  upon  any 
part  thereof,  or  upon  any  of  its  citizens.  Further  than  this,  the  right 
to  coin  money  is  exercised  under  the  authority  of  the  Emperor;  and  the 
laws  are  promulgated,  and  all  judicial  power  is  exercised,  in  his  name. 
Before  assuming  the  throne,  the  Emperor  is  required  to  take  a  solemn 
oath  in  the  presence  of  the  two  houses  of  the  Reichsrath  "to  maintain 
inviolable  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  kingdoms  and  countries  repre- 
sented in  the  Reichsrath,  and  to  govern  in  conformity  with  them,  and 
in  conformity  with  the  laws  in  general."  *  The  present  Emperor-King 
has  a  civil  list  of  22,600,000  crowns,  half  of  which  is  derived  from  the 
revenues  of  Austria  and  half  from  those  of  Hungary.  The  Imperial 
residence  in  Vienna,  the  Hofburg,  has  been  the  seat  of  the  princes  of 
Austria  since  the  thirteenth  century. 

515.  The  Ministers:  Responsibility. — The  Austrian  ministry  com- 
prises portfolios  as  follows:  Finance,  the  Interior,  Railways,  National 
Defense,  Agriculture,  Justice,  Commerce,  Labor,  and  Instruction  and 
Worship.  Three  important  departments — those  of  War,  Finance, 
and  Foreign  Affairs  and  the  Imperial  and  Royal  House — are  main- 
tained by  the  affiliated  monarchies  in  common.2  And  there  are  usu- 
ally from  one  to  four  ministerial  representatives  of  leading  racial  ele- 
ments without  portfolio,  there  being  in  the  present  cabinet  one  such 
minister  for  Galicia.  All  ministers  are  appointed  and  dismissed  by 
the  Emperor.  Under  the  leadership  of  a  president  of  the  council  or 
premier  (without  portfolio),  they  serve  as  the  Emperor's  councillors, 
execute  his  will,  and  administer  the  affairs  of  their  respective  branches 
of  the  public  service.  It  is  provided  by  fundamental  law  that  they 
shall  be  responsible  for  the  constitutionality  and  legality  of  govern- 
mental acts  performed  within  the  sphere  of  their  powers.3  They  are 
responsible  to  the  two  branches  of  the  national  parliament  alike,  and 

1  Law  concerning  the  Exercise  of  Administrative  and  Executive  Power,  Decem- 
ber 21,  1867,  §  8.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  88. 

2  There  is  a  joint  ministry  of  finance,  though  each  of  the  monarchies  maintains  a 
separate  ministry  for  the  administration  of  its  own  fiscal  affairs.    On  the  joint 
ministries  see  p.  510. 

3  Law  concerning  the  Exercise  of  Administrative  and  Executive  Power,  Decem- 
ber 21,  1867,  §  9.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  88-89. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  46$ 

may  be  interpellated  or  impeached  by  either.  For  impeachment  an 
elaborate  procedure  is  prescribed,  though  thus  far  it  has  not  proved 
of  practical  utility.  Every  law  promulgated  in  the  Emperor's  name 
must  bear  the  signature  of  a  responsible  minister,  and  several  sorts 
of  ordinances — such  as  those  proclaiming  a  state  of  siege  or  suspending 
the  constitutional  rights  of  a  citizen — require  the  concurrent  signature 
of  the  entire  ministry.  Every  minister  possesses  the  right  to  sit  and  to 
speak  in  either  chamber  of  the  Reichsrath,  where  the  policy  of  the 
Government  may  call  for  explanation  or  defense,  and  where  there 
are  at  least  occasional  interpellations  to  be  answered. 

Nominally,  the  parliamentary  system  is  in  vogue,  but  at  best  it 
operates  only  indifferently.  Supposedly  responsible,  collectively  and 
individually,  to  the  Reichsrath,  the  ministers  are  in  practice  far  more 
dependent  upon  the  Emperor  than  upon  the  chambers.  In  France  the 
inability  of  political  parties  to  coalesce  into  two  great  opposing  groups 
largely  defeats  the  best  ends  of  the  parliamentary  system.  In  Austria 
the  numerous  and  ineradicable  racial  divisions  deflect  the  system 
further  still  from  the  lines  upon  which  theoretically  it  should  operate. 
No  political  group  is  sufficiently  powerful  to  rule  alone,  and  no  work- 
ing affiliation  can  long  be  made  to  subsist.  The  consequence  is,  not 
only  that  the  Government  can  ordinarily  play  off  one  faction  against 
another  and  secure  pretty  much  its  own  way,  but  also  that  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  ministers  to  the  chambers  is  much  less  effective 
in  practice  than  on  paper  it  appears  to  be.1 

III.  THE  REICHSRATH — THE  ELECTORAL  SYSTEM 

516.  The  House  of  Lords. — The  Reichsrath  consists  of  two  cham- 
bers. The  upper  is  known  as  the  Herrenhaus,  or  House  of  Lords;  the 
lower,  as  the  Abgeordnetenhaus,  or  House  of  Representatives.  The 
Herrenhaus  consists  of  a  somewhat  variable  number  of  men  who  sit  in 
part  by  ex-officio  right,  in  part  by  hereditary  station,  and  in  part  by 
special  Imperial  appointment.  At  the  close  of  1910  there  were  in  the 
chamber  266  members,  distributed  as  follows:  (i)  princes  of  the  Impe- 
rial family  who  are  of  age,  15;  (2)  nobles  of  high  rank  qualified  by  the 
possession  of  large  estates  and  nominated  to  an  hereditary  seat  by  the 
Emperor,  74;  (3)  ecclesiastics — 10  archbishops  and  8  bishops — who  are 
of  princely  title  inherent  in  their  episcopal  seats,  18;  and  (4)  persons 
nominated  by  the  Emperor  for  life  in  recognition  of  special  service 

1  W.  Beaumont,  Cabinets  e"phemeres  et  ministeres  provisoires  en  Autriche,  in 
Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  March,  1900;  H.  Hantich,  Nouvelle  phase  du 
parlementarisme  en  Autriche,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  February  i, 
1910. 


466  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

rendered  to  the  state  or  the  Church,  or  unusual  distinction  attained  in 
literature,  art,  or  science,  159.  By  law  of  January  26,  1907,  the  num- 
ber of  members  in  the  last-mentioned  group  may  not  exceed  170,  nor 
be  less  than  I50.1  Within  these  limits,  the  power  of  the  Emperor  to 
create  life  peers  is  absolute.  The  prerogative  is  one  which  has  several 
times  been  exercised  to  facilitate  the  enactment  of  measures  upon 
whose  adoption  the  Government  was  determined.  The  president  and 
vice-president  of  the  chamber  are  appointed  from  its  members  by  the 
Emperor  at  the  beginning  of  each  session;  but  the  body  chooses  all  of 
its  remaining  officers.  The  privileges  and  powers  of  the  Herrenhaus 
are  co-ordinate  with  those  of  the  Abgeordnetenhaus,  save  that  money 
bills  and  bills  fixing  the  number  of  military  recruits  must  be  presented 
first  in  the  lower  chamber. 

617.  The  House  of  Representatives:    Composition. — The   lower 
chamber,  as  constituted  by  fundamental  law  of  1867,  was  made  up  of 
203  representatives,  apportioned  among  the  several  provinces  and 
elected  by  the  provincial  diets.    The  system  worked  poorly,  and  a  law 
of  1868  authorized  the  voters  of  a  province  to  elect  the  stipulated 
quota  of  representatives  in  the  event  that  the  Diet  failed  to  do  so. 
Still  there  was  difficulty,  arising  largely  from  the  racial  rivalries  in  the 
provinces,  and  by  an  amendment  of  April  2,  1873,  the  right  of  election 
was  vested  exclusively  in  the  enfranchised  inhabitants  of  the  Empire. 
The  number  of  members  was  at  the  same  time  increased  to  353,  though 
without  modifying  the  proportion  of  representatives  of  the  various 
provinces.    Further  amendment,  in  1896,  brought  up  the  membership 
to  425,  where  it  remained  until  1907,  when  it  was  raised  to  the  present 
figure,  516. 

618.  Early  Electoral  Arrangements:  Law  of  1873. — The  broadly 
democratic  electoral  system  which  prevails  in  the  Austrian  dominions 
to-day  is  a  very  recent  creation.    With  the  introduction  of  consti- 
tutionalism in  1867  the  problem  of  the  franchise  became  one  of  pecu- 
liar and  increasing  difficulty,  and  the  process  by  which  the  Empire  has 
been  brought  laboriously  to  its  present  condition  of  democracy  has 
constituted  one  of  the  most  tortuous  chapters  in  recent  political  history. 
The  conditions  by  which  from  the  outset  the  problem  was  complicated 
were  three  in  number:  first,  the  large  survival  of  self-assertiveness  on 
the  part  of  the  various  provinces  among  whom  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives were  to  be  distributed;  second,  the  keenness  of  the  ambi- 
tions of  the  several  racial  elements  for  parliamentary  power;  and  third, 

1  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  this  guarantee  against  the  wholesale  creation  of 
peers  was  brought  forward  with  the  object  of  winning  for  the  Government's  Uni- 
versal Suffrage  Bill  the  assent  of  the  upper  chamber. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  467 

the  utter  lack  of  experience  and  of  traditions  on  the  part  of  the  Aus- 
trian peoples  in  the  matter  of  democratic  government. 

When,  in  1873,  the  right  of  electing  deputies  was  withdrawn  from 
the  provincial  diets  it  was  conferred,  without  the  establishment  of  a 
new  electorate,  upon  those  elements  of  the  provincial  populations 
which  had  been  accustomed  to  take  part  in  the  election  of  the  local 
diets.  These  were  four  in  number:  (i)  the  great  land-owners,  com- 
prising those  who  paid  a  certain  land  tax,  varying  in  the  several 
provinces  from  50  to  250  florins  ($20  to  $100),  and  including  women 
and  corporations;  (2)  the  cities,  in  which  the  franchise  was  extended 
to  all  males  of  twenty-four  who  paid  a  direct  tax  of  ten  gulden  annu- 
ally; (3)  chambers  of  commerce  and  of  industry;  and  (4)  rural  com- 
munes, in  which  the  qualifications  for  voting  were  the  same  as  in  the 
cities.  To  each  of  these  curiae,  or  classes,  the  law  of  1873  assigned  a 
number  of  parliamentary  representatives,  to  be  elected  thereafter  in 
each  province  directly  by  the  voters  of  the  respective  classes,  rather 
than  indirectly  through  the  diets.  The  number  of  voters  in  each  class 
and  the  relative  importance  of  the  individual  voter  varied  enormously. 
In  1890,  in  the  class  of  land-owners  there  was  one  deputy  to  every 
63  voters;  in  the  chambers  of  commerce,  one  to  every  27;  in  the  cities, 
one  to  every  2,918;  and  in  the  rural  districts,  one  to  every  n^oo.1 

619.  The  Taaffe  Electoral  Bill  of  1893. — During  the  period  covered 
by  the  ministry  of  Count  Taaffe  (February,  1879,  to  October,  1893) 
there  was  growing  demand,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  Socialists, 
Young  Czechs,  German  Nationalists,  and  other  radical  groups,  for  a 
new  electoral  law,  and  during  the  years  1893-1896  this  issue  quite  over- 
shadowed all  others.  In  October,  1893,  Taaffe  brought  forward  a 
sweeping  electoral  measure  which,  if  it  had  become  law,  would  have 
transferred  the  bulk  of  political  power  to  the  working  classes,  at  the 
same  time  reducing  to  impotence  the  preponderant  German  Liberal 
party.  The  measure  did  not  provide  for  the  general,  equal,  and  direct 
suffrage  for  which  the  radicals  were  clamoring,  and  by  which  the  num- 
ber of  voters  would  have  been  increased  from  1,700,000  to  5,500,000. 
But  it  did  contemplate  the  increase  of  the  electorate  to  something  like 
4,000,000.  This  it  proposed  to  accomplish  by  abolishing  all  property 
qualifications  of  voters  hi  the  cities  and  rural  communes  2  and  by  ex- 
tending the  voting  privilege  to  all  adult  males  who  were  able  to  read 
and  write  and  who  had  resided  in  their  electoral  district  a  minimum  of 
six  months.  To  avoid  the  danger  of  an  excess  of  democracy  Taaffe 
planned  to  retain  intact  the  curiae  of  landed  proprietors  and  chambers 

1  Hazen,  Europe  since  1815,  399. 

2  By  a  law  of  1882  the  direct-tax  qualification  had  been  reduced  to  5  florins. 


468  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  commerce,  so  that  it  would  still  be  true  that  5,402  large  landholders 
would  be  represented  in  the  lower  house  by  85  deputies,  the  chambers 
of  commerce  by  22,  and  the  remainder  of  the  nation — some  24,000,000 
people — by  246.  Impelled  especially  by  fear  of  socialism,  the  Con- 
servatives, the  Poles,  the  German  Liberals,  and  other  elements  opposed 
the  project,  and  there  never  was  any  real  chance  of  its  adoption.  By 
reason  of  its  halfway  character  the  Socialists,  in  congress  at  Vienna 
in  March,  1894,  condemned  it  as  "an  insult  to  the  working  classes." 
Even  in  Hungary  (which  country,  of  course,  the  measure  did  not 
immediately  concern)  there  was  apprehension,  the  ruling  Magyars 
fearing  that  the  adoption  of  even  a  partial  universal  suffrage  system 
in  the  affiliated  state  would  prompt  a  demand  on  the  part  of  the  numer- 
ically preponderant  Slavic  populations  of  Hungary  for  the  same  sort 
of  thing.  Anticipating  defeat,  Taaffe  resigned,  in  October,  1893, 
before  the  measure  came  to  a  vote. 

620.  The  Electoral  Law  of  1896. — Under  the  Windischgratz  and 
Kielmansegg  ministries  which  succeeded  no  progress  was  realized, 
but  the  cabinet  of  the  Polish  Count  Badeni,  constituted  October  4, 
1895,  made  electoral  reform  the  principal  item  in  its  programme  and 
succeeded  in  carrying  through  a  measure  which,  indeed,  was  but  a 
caricature  of  TaafiVs  project,  but  which  none  the  less  marked  a  dis- 
tinct stage  of  progress  toward  the  broad-based  franchise  for  which  the 
radicals  were  clamoring.  The  Government's  bill  was  laid  before  the 
Reichsrath,  February  16, 1896,  and  was  adopted  unchanged  within  the 
space  of  two  weeks.  The  general  suffrage  which  the  Socialists  de- 
manded was  established,  for  the  election,  however,  not  of  the  353 
representatives  already  composing  the  lower  chamber,  but  merely  of  a 
body  of  72  new  representatives  to  be  added  to  the  present  membership. 
In  the  choice  of  these  72  additional  members  every  male  citizen 
twenty-four  years  of  age  who  had  resided  in  a  given  district  as  much  as 
six  months  prior  to  an  election  was  to  be  entitled  to  participate;  but 
elections  were  to  be  direct  only  in  those  districts  in  which  indirect 
voting  had  been  abolished  by  provincial  legislation.  Votes  were  to  be 
cast,  as  a  rule,  by  ballot,  though  under  some  circumstances  orally. 
All  pre-existing  classes  of  voters  were  left  unchanged,  and  to  them  was 
simply  added  a  fifth.  The  aggregate  number  of  electors  in  the  Empire 
was  raised  to  5,333,000.  Of  the  number,  however,  the  1,732,000  com- 
prised in  the  original  four  curiae  were  still  to  elect  353  of  the  425  mem- 
bers of  the  chamber,  with  the  further  inequity  that  many  of  the  per- 
sons who  profited  by  the  new  arrangement  were  included  already 
in  one  or  another  of  the  older  classes,  and  hence  were  vested  by  it 
with  a  plural  vote.  Although,  therefore,  the  voting  privilege  was 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  469 

now  conferred  upon  millions  of  small  taxpayers  and  non-taxpayers 
who  never  before  had  possessed  it,  the  nation  was  still  very  far  from  a 
fair  and  democratic  suffrage  system. 

621.  Renewed  Agitation:  the  Universal  Suffrage  Law  of  1907. — 
Throughout  the  decade  following  1896  electoral  agitation  was  continu- 
ous and  widespread,  but  not  until  1905  did  the  situation  become  favor- 
able for  further  reform.  In  September  of  the  year  mentioned  Francis 
Joseph  approved  the  proposal  that  universal  suffrage  be  included  in  the 
programme  of  the  Fejervary  cabinet  in  Hungary,  and  the  act  was  taken 
at  once  to  mean  that  the  sovereign  had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the 
democratizing  of  the  franchise  was  inevitable  in  all  of  his  dominions.  In 
point  of  fact,  by  reason  of  the  prolonged  parliamentary  crisis  of  late 
years  at  Vienna,  the  Emperor  was  fast  arriving  at  precisely  such  a  con- 
clusion. Stimulated  by  current  developments  in  Hungary  and  in  Russia, 
the  Austrian  Socialists,  late  in  1905,  entered  upon  a  notable  series  of 
demonstrations,  and,  November  28,  Premier  Gautsch  was  moved  to 
pledge  the  Government  to  introduce  forthwith  a  franchise  reform  bill 
based  upon  the  principle  of  universal  suffrage.  February  23,  1906, 
the  promise  was  redeemed  by  the  presentation  in  the  Reichsrath  of 
proposals  for  (i)  the  abolition  of  the  system  of  electoral  curiae,  (2) 
the  extension  of  an  equal  franchise  to  all  males  over  twenty-four  years 
of  age  and  resident  in  their  district  a  year,  (3)  the  division  of  Austria 
racially  into  compartments  so  that  each  ethnic  group  might  be  protected 
against  its  rivals,  and  (4)  the  increase  of  the  number  of  seats  from  425 
to  455,  a  fr^d  number  to  be  allotted  to  each  province,  and  in  each 
province  to  each  race,  in  accordance  with  numbers  and  tax-paying 
capacity. 

The  outlook  for  the  bill  in  which  these  proposals  were  incorporated 
was  at  first  not  promising.  The  Social  Democrats,  the  Christian  Social- 
ists, and  the  Young  Czechs  were  favorable;  the  Poles  were  reserved 
in  their  attitude,  but  inclined  to  be  hostile;  practically  all  of  the  German 
Liberals  were  opposed;  and  the  landed  proprietors,  long  accustomed  to 
dominate  within  the  preponderant  German  element  in  the  Reichsrath, 
were  violently  hostile.  In  April,  1906,  while  the  bill  was  pending,  the 
Gautsch  ministry  found  itself  without  a  parliamentary  majority  and  was 
succeeded  by  a  ministry  made  up  by  Prince  Hohenlohe-Schillingsfurst. 
This  ministry  lasted  but  six  weeks,  and  June  2  the  coalition  cabinet 
of  Baron  Beck  assumed  office.  Convinced  that  the  establishment  of 
universal  and  direct  suffrage  would  afford  the  best  means  of  stimulating 
loyalty  to  the  dynasty,  as  well  as  the  only  practicable  means  of  freeing 
the  Government  from  parliamentary  obstructionism,  Emperor  Francis 
Joseph  accorded  the  Beck  ministry  his  earnest  support  in  its  purpose 


470  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

to  push  to  a  conclusion  the  task  of  electoral  reform.  The  effort  attained 
fruition  in  the  memorable  Universal  Suffrage  Law  passed  by  both 
houses  of  the  Reichsrath  in  the  closing  days  of  1906  and  approved  by 
the  Emperor  January  26  of  the  following  year.  The  measure,  which  was 
in  form  an  amendment  of  the  fundamental  law  of  December  21,  1867, 
concerning  Imperial  Representation,  was  opposed  by  the  conservative 
and  aristocratic  members  of  both  houses  and  by  the  extremer  rep- 
resentatives of  the  various  nationalities;  but,  like  other  portions  of  the 
constitutional  system  of  the  Empire,  it  may  not  be  amended  save  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  both  houses,  and  it  is  likely  to  endure  through  a 
considerable  period  unchanged. 

522.  Racial  and  Geographical  Distribution  of  Seats. — In  the  course 
of  the  prolonged  negotiations  between  the  Government  and  represent- 
atives of  the  various  nationalities  by  which  the  preparation  of  the  law 
was  attended  there  was  worked  out  a  fresh  allotment  of  seats  to  the 
several  racial  groups  of  the  Empire,  in  proportion,  roughly,  to  tax- 
paying  capacity.  The  total  number  of  seats  was  raised  from  425  to 
5 16.  Their  distribution  among  the  races,  as  compared  with  that  formerly 
existing,  was  arranged  as  follows:1 

Before  1907     After  igoy 

Germans  of  all  parties 205  233 

Czechs 81  108 

Poles 71  80 

South  Slavs  (Slovenes,  Croats,  Serbs) 27  37 

Ruthenes n  34     * 

Italians 18  19 

Roumanians 5                   5 

418  516 

The  striking  feature  of  this  readjustment  is,  of  course,  the  increased 
number  of  seats  assigned  to  the  non-German  nationalities.  In  pro- 
portion strictly  to  population,  the  Germans  still  possess  a  larger  number 
of  seats  than  that  to  which  they  are  entitled.  But  the  aggregate  is  only 
233,  while  the  aggregate  of  Slavic  seats  is  259.  Even  if  the  former 
German-Italian  bloc  were  still  effective  it  could  control  a  total  of  only 
257  votes;  but,  in  point  of  fact,  the  Italians  in  the  Reichsrath  to-day 
are  apt  to  act  with  the  Slavs  rather  than  with  the  Germans. 

After  decision  had  been  reached  regarding  the  distribution  of  seats 
in  accordance  with  races  it  remained  to  effect  a  distribution  geographic- 
ally among  the  provinces  of  the  Empire.  To  each  of  the  several  prov- 

1  For  tables  exhibiting  comparatively  the  distribution  of  seats  in  1867,  1873, 
1896,  and  1907,  see  W.  Beaumont,  Le  suffrage  universel  en  Autriche:  la  loi  du  26 
Janvier  1907  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Sept.,  1907. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  471 

inces  was  assigned  an  aggregate  quota  which,  in  turn,  was  distributed 
within  the  province  among  the  racial  groups  represented  in  the  provincial 
population.  The  allotment  made,  in  comparison  with  that  prevailing 
under  the  law  of  1896,  was  as  follows: 

Before  1907     After  igo? 

Kingdom  of  Bohemia no  130 

Kingdom  of  Galicia  and  Lodomeria,  with  the  grand- 
duchy  of  Cracow 78  106 

Archduchy  of  Lower  Austria 46  64 

Margravate  of  Moravia 43  49 

Duchy  of  Styria 27  30 

Princely  County  of  Tyrol 21  25 

Archduchy  of  Upper  Austria 20  22 

Duchy  of  Upper  and  Lower  Silesia 12  15 

Duchy  of  Bukovina n  14 

Duchy  of  Carniola u  12 

Kingdom  of  Dalmatia n  n 

Duchy  of  Carinthia .- 10  10 

Duchy  of  Salsburg 6  7 

Margravate  of  Istria 5  6 

Princely  County  of  Gorz  and  Gradisca 5  6 

City  of  Trieste  and  its  territory 5  5 

Territory  of  Vorarlberg 4  4 

425  5i6 

523.  Electoral  Qualifications  and  Procedure. — By  the  law  of  1907 
the  class  system  of  voting  was  abolished  entirely  in  national  elections, 
and  in  its  stead  was  established  general,  equal,  and  direct  manhood 
suffrage.  With  insignificant  exceptions,  every  male  citizen  who  has 
attained  the  age  of  twenty-four,  and  who,  at  the  time  the  election  is 
ordered,  has  resided  during  at  least  one  year  in  the  commune  in  which 
the  right  to  vote  is  to  be  exercised,  is  qualified  to  vote  for  a  parliamentary 
representative.  And  any  male  thirty  years  of  age,  or  over,  who  has 
been  during  at  least  three  years  a  citizen,  and  who  is  possessed  of  the 
franchise,  is  eligible  to  be  chosen  as  a  representative.  Voting  is  by 
secret  ballot,  and  an  absolute  majority  of  all  votes  cast  is  necessary  for  a 
choice.  In  default  of  such  a  majority  there  is  a  second  ballot  between 
the  two  candidates  who  at  the  first  test  received  the  largest  number  of 
votes.  It  is  stipulated,  further,  that  when  so  ordered  by  the  provincial 
diet,  voting  shall  be  obligatory,  under  penalty  of  fine,  and  in  the  prov- 
inces of  Lower  Austria,  Upper  Austria,  Silesia,  Salsburg,  Moravia,  and 
Vorarlberg  every  elector  is  required  by  provincial  regulation  to  appear 
at  every  parliamentary  election  in  his  district,  and  to  present  his  ballot, 
the  penalty  for  neglect  (unless  explained  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  proper 
magistrate)  being  a  fine  ranging  from  one  to  fifty  crowns.  In  the  House 


472  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Lords,  where  there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  principle  of  manhood 
suffrage,  effort  was  made  to  introduce  in  the  act  of  1907  a  provision  for 
the  conferring  of  a  second  vote  upon  all  voters  above  the  age  of  thirty- 
five.  By  the  Emperor  and  ministry  it  was  urged,  however,  that  the 
injection  of  such  a  modification  would  wreck  the  measure,  and  when  the 
lower  chamber  tacitly  pledged  itself  to  enact  a  law  designed  to  prevent 
the  "  swamping  "  of  the  peers  by  Imperial  appointment  at  the  behest  of 
a  parliamentary  majority,  the  plural  voting  project  was  abandoned.1 

So  far  as  practicable,  the  electoral  constituencies  in  the  various 
provinces  are  arranged  to  preserve  the  distinction  between  urban  and 
rural  districts  and  to  comprise  racial  groups  that  are  essentially  homo- 
geneous. In  regions,  as  Bohemia,  where  the  population  is  especially  mixed 
separate  constituencies  and  registers  are  maintained  for  the  electors 
of  each  nationality,  and  a  man  may  vote  on  only  the  register  of  his  own 
race  and  for  a  candidate  of  that  race.  Germans,  thus,  are  obliged  to 
vote  for  Germans,  Czechs  for  Czechs,  Poles  for  Poles;  so  that,  while 
there  may  be  a  contest  between  a  German  Clerical  and  a  German  Liberal 
or  between  a  Young  Czech  and  a  Radical  Czech,  there  can  be  none  be- 
tween Germans  and  Czechs,  or  between  Poles  and  Ruthenes.  In  general, 
each  district  returns  but  one  representative.  The  36  Galician  districts, 
however,  return  two  apiece.  Each  elector  there,  as  elsewhere,  votes  for 
but  one  candidate,  the  device  permitting  the  representation  of  minori- 
ties. The  population  comprising  a  constituency  varies  from  26,693 
in  Salsburg  to  68,724  in  Galicia.  The  average  is  49,676^ 

624.  The  Reichsrath:  Sessions  and  Procedure. — By  the  law  of  1867 
no  limit  was  fixed  for  the  period  of  service  of  the  parliamentary  repre- 
sentative. The  life  of  the  Reichsrath,  and  consequently  the  tenure  of 
the  individual  deputy,  was  terminated  only  by  a  dissolution.  Under 
provision  of  an  amendment  of  April  2,  1873,  however,  members  of  the 
lower  chamber  are  elected  for  a  term  of  six  years,  at  the  expiration  of 
which  period,  as  also  in  the  event  of  a  dissolution,  a  new  election 
must  be  held.  Representatives  are  indefinitely  eligible  for  re-election. 
Vacancies  are  filled  by  special  elections,  which  may  be  held  at  any  time, 
according  to  procedure  specified  by  law.  Representatives  receive  a 
stipend  of  20  crowns  for  each  day's  attendance,  with  an  allowance  for 
travelling  expenses. 

1  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  pledge  was  redeemed  in  1907  by  a  measure  fixing 
the  minimum  number  of  life  peers  at  150  and  the  maximum  at  170.    See  p.  466. 

2  On  the  electoral  law  of  1907  see  W.  Beaumont,  Le  suffrage  universel  en  Au- 
triche:  la  loi  du  26  Janvier  1907,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Sept.,  1907; 
H.  Hantich,  Le  suffrage  universel  en  Autriche,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Colon- 
tales,  Feb.  16,  1907;  M.  E.  Zweig,  La  re'forme  electorate  en  Autriche,  in  Revue 
du  Droit  Public,  April-June  and  July-Sept.,  1907. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  473 

The  fundamental  law  prescribes  that  the  Reichsrath  shall  be  con- 
vened annually,  "during  the  winter  months  when  possible."1  The 
Emperor  appoints  the  president  and  vice-president  of  the  Herrenhaus, 
from  among  the  members  of  the  chamber,  and  for  the  period  of  a  session. 
The  Abgeordnetenhaus  elects  from  its  members  its  president  and  vice- 
president.  Normally,  the  sessions  of  both  houses  are  public,  though 
upon  request  of  the  president,  or  of  at  least  ten  members,  and  by  a 
decision  taken  behind  closed  doors,  each  house  possesses  the  right,  in 
exceptional  instances,  to  exclude  spectators.  Projects  of  legislation 
may  be  submitted  by  the  Government  or  by  the  individual  members 
of  the  chambers.  Measures  pass  by  majority  vote;  but  no  act  is  valid 
unless  at  the  time  of  its  passage  there  are  present  in  the  lower  house 
as  many  as  100  members,  and  in  the  upper  house  as  many  as  40.  A 
curious  provision  touching  the  relations  of  the  two  houses  is  that  if, 
on  a  question  of  appropriation  or  of  the  size  of  a  military  contingent, 
no  agreement  can  be  reached  between  the  two  houses  after  prolonged 
deliberation,  the  smallest  figure  approved  by  either  house  shall  be  re- 
garded as  voted.2  By  decree  of  the  Emperor  the  Reichsrath  may  at 
any  time  be  adjourned,  or  the  lower  chamber  dissolved.  Ministers  and 
chiefs  of  the  central  administration  are  entitled  to  take  part  in  all 
deliberations,  and  to  present  their  proposals  personally  or  through  repre- 
sentatives. Each  house  may,  indeed,  require  a  minister's  attendance. 
Members  of  the  chambers  may  not  be  held  responsible  for  any  vote 
cast;  and  for  any  utterances  made  by  them  they  may  be  held  responsible 
only  by  the  house  to  which  they  belong.  Unless  actually  apprehended 
in  a  criminal  act,  no  member  of  either  house  may  be  arrested  or  pro- 
ceeded against  judicially  during  the  continuance  of  a  session,  except 
by  the  consent  of  the  chamber  to  which  he  belongs.3 

525.  The  Reichsrath:  Powers. — The  powers  of  the  Reichsrath  are, 
in  general,  those  ordinarily  belonging  to  a  parliamentary  body.  Accord- 
ing to  fundamental  law  of  1867,  they  comprise  all  matters  which  relate 
to  the  rights,  obligations,  and  interests  of  the  provinces  represented  in 
the  chambers,  in  so  far  as  these  matters  are  not  required  to  be  handled 
conjointly  with  the  proper  representatives  of  the  Hungarian  portion  of 
the  monarchy.  The  Reichsrath  examines  and  ratifies  or  rejects  com- 
mercial treaties,  and  likewise  political  treaties  which  place  a  fiscal  bur- 

1  Law  of  December  21,  1867,  concerning  Imperial  Representation,  §  10.    Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  77. 

2  Law  of  December  21,  1867,  concerning  Imperial  Representation,  §  13.    Dodd, 
Ibid.,  L,  81. 

3  For  a  collection  of  the  rules  of  order  of  the  Austrian  Parliament  see  K.  and  O. 
Neisser,  Die   Geschaftsordnung  des  Abgeordnetenhaus  des  Reichsrates,  2  vols. 
(Vienna,  1909). 


474  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

den  on  the  Empire  or  any  portion  of  it,  impose  obligations  upon  in- 
dividual citizens,  or  involve  any  change  of  territorial  status.  It  makes 
provision  for  the  military  and  naval  establishments.  It  enacts  the 
budget  and  approves  all  taxes  and  duties.  It  regulates  the  monetary 
system,  banking,  trade,  and  communication.  It  legislates  on  citizen- 
ship, public  health,  individual  rights,  education,  criminal  justice  and 
police  regulation,  the  duties  and  interrelations  of  the  provinces,  and  a 
wide  variety  of  other  things.  It  exercises  the  right  of  legalizing  or  annull- 
ing Imperial  ordinances  which,  under  urgent  circumstances,  may  be 
promulgated  by  the  Emperor  with  the  provisional  force  of  law  when  the 
chambers  are  not  in  session.1  Such  ordinances  may  not  introduce  any 
alteration  in  the  fundamental  law,  impose  any  lasting  burden  upon  the 
treasury,  or  alienate  territory.  They  must  be  issued,  if  issued  at  all, 
under  the  signature  of  all  of  the  ministers,  and  they  lose  their  legal 
force  if  the  Government  does  not  lay  them  before  the  lower  chamber 
within  the  first  four  weeks  of  its  next  ensuing  session,  or  if  either  of  the 
two  houses  refuses  its  assent  thereto.  Each  of  the  houses  may  inter- 
pellate the  ministers  upon  all  matters  within  the  scope  of  then*  powers, 
may  investigate  the  administrative  acts  of  the  Government,  demand 
information  from  the  ministers  concerning  petitions  presented  to  the 
houses,  may  appoint  commissions,  to  which  the  ministers  must  give  all 
necessary  information,  and  may  give  expression  to  its  views  in  the  form 
of  addresses  or  resolutions.  Any  minister  may  be  impeached  by  either 
house.2 

IV.  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

626.  Racial  Elements  in  the  Empire. — The  key  to  the  politics  of 
Austria  is  afforded  by  the  racial  composition  of  the  Empire's  popula- 
tion. In  our  own  day  there  is  a  tendency,  in  consequence  of  the  spread 
of  socialism  and  of  other  radical  programmes  which  leap  across  racial 
and  provincial  lines,  toward  the  rise  of  Austrian  parties  which  shall  be 
essentially  inter-racial  in  their  constituencies.  Yet  at  the  elections 
of  1907 — the  first  held  under  the  new  electoral  law — of  the  twenty- 
six  party  affiliations  which  succeeded  in  obtaining  at  least  one  parlia- 
mentary seat  all  save  possibly  two  comprised  either  homogeneous 
racial  groups  or  factions  of  such  groups.  Fundamentally,  the  racial 
question  in  Austria  has  always  been  that  of  German  versus  non- 
German.  The  original  Austria  was  preponderantly  German;  the 

1  Issued  under  warrant  of  the  much-controverted  Section  14.    See  p.  461. 

2  Law  of  December  21,  1867,  concerning  Imperial  Representation,  §  21.    Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  83.    A  work  of  value  is  G.  Kolmer,  Parlament  und  Ver- 
fassung  in  Osterreich  (Vienna,  1909). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  475 

wealthiest,  the  best  educated,  the  most  widespread  of  the  racial 
elements  in  the  Empire  to-day  is  the  German;  and  by  the  Germans  it 
has  regularly  been  assumed  that  Austria  is,  and  ought  to  be,  essentially 
a  German  country.1  In  this  assumption  the  non-German  populations 
of  the  Empire  have  at  no  time  acquiesced;  and  while  they  have  never 
been  able  to  combine  long  or  effectively  against  the  dominating  Ger- 
manic element,  they  have  sought  persistently,  each  in  its  own  way, 
to  compel  a  fuller  recognition  of  their  several  interests  and  rights. 

The  nationalities  represented  within  the  Empire  fall  broadly  into 
three  great  groups:  the  German,  the  Slavic,  and  the  Latin.  In  an 
aggregate  population  of  26,107,304  hi  1900  the  Germans  numbered 
9,171,614,  or  somewhat  more  than  35  per  cent;  the  Slavs,  15,690,000, 
or  somewhat  more  than  60  per  cent;  and  the  Latins,  958,065,  or  approx- 
imately 3.7  per  cent.  The  Germans,  comprising  the  most  numerous 
of  the  individual  nationalities,  occupy  exclusively  Upper  Austria, 
Salsburg,  and  Vorarlberg,  the  larger  portion  of  Lower  Austria,  north- 
western Carinthia,  the  north  and  center  of  Styria  and  Tyrol,  and,  in 
fact,  are  distributed  much  more  generally  over  the  entire  Empire  than 
is  any  one  of  the  other  racial  elements.  The  Slavs  are  in  two  principal 
groups,  the  northern  and  the  southern.  The  northern  includes  the 
Czechs  and  Slovaks,  dwelling  principally  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia, 
and  numbering,  in  1900,  5,955,397;  the  Poles,  comprising  a  compact 
mass  of  4,252,483  people  in  Galicia  and  Silesia;  and  the  Ruthenes, 
numbering  3,381,570,  in  eastern  Galicia  and  in  Bukovina.  The  south- 
ern Slavic  group  includes  the  Slovenes,  numbering  1,192,780,  hi 
Carniola,  Gorz,  Gradisca,  Istria,  and  Styria,  and  the  Servians  and 
Croats,  numbering  711,380,  in  Istria  and  Dalmatia.  The  peoples  of 
Latin  stock  are  the  Italians  and  Ladini  (727,102),  in  Tyrol,  Gorz, 
Gradisca,  Dalmatia,  and  Trieste,  and  the  Roumanians  (230,963) 
in  Bukovina.  Within  many  of  the  groups  mentioned  there  is  meager 
survival  of  political  unity.  There  are  German  Clericals,  German 
Progressives,  German  Radicals,  German  Agrarians;  likewise  Old 
Czechs,  Young  Czechs,  Czech  Realists,  Czech  Agrarians,  Czech  Cler- 
icals, and  Czech  Radicals.  Austrian  party  history  within  the  past 
fifty  years  comprises  largely  the  story  of  the  political  contests  among 
the  several  nationalities,  and  of  the  disintegration  of  these  nationali- 
ties into  a  bewildering  throng  of  clamorous  party  cliques. 

627.  Centralists  and  Federalists.— The  more  important  of  the  party 

groups  of  to-day  trace  their  origins  to  the  formative  period  in  recent 

Austro-Hungarian   constitutional   history,   1860-1867.     During  this 

period  the  fundamental  issue  in  the  Empire  was  the  degree  ol  cen- 

1  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  95. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

tralization  which  it  was  desirable,  or  possible,  to  achieve  in  the  re- 
shaping of  the  governmental  system.  On  the  one  hand  were  the  cen- 
tralists, who  would  have  bound  the  loosely  agglomerated  kingdoms, 
duchies,  and  territories  of  the  Empire  into  a  consolidated  state.  On 
the  other  were  the  federalists,  to  whom  centralization  appeared 
dangerous,  as  well  as  unjust  to  the  Empire's  component  nationalities. 
Speaking  broadly,  the  Germans,  supported  by  the  Italians,  comprised 
the  party  of  centralization;  the  Slavs,  that  of  federalism.  The  estab- 
lishment of  the  constitution  of  1867,  as  well  as  of  the  Compromise 
with  Hungary  in  the  same  year,  was  the  achievement  of  the  cen- 
tralists, and  with  the  completion  of  this  gigantic  task  there  gradually 
took  form  a  compactly  organized  political  party,  variously  known  as  the 
National  German  party,  the  German  Liberals,  or  the  Constitutional- 
ists, whose  watchwords  were  the  preservation  of  the  constitution  and 
the  Germanization  of  the  Empire.  For  a  time  this  party  maintained 
the  upper  hand  completely,  but  its  ascendancy  was  menaced  not  only 
by  the  disaffected  forces  of  federalism  but  by  the  continued  tenseness 
of  the  clerical  question  and,  after  1869,  by  intestine  conflict.  As  was 
perhaps  inevitable,  the  party  split  into  two  branches,  the  one  radical 
and  the  other  moderate.  During  the  earlier  months  of  1870  the  Rad- 
icals, under  Hasner,  were  in  control;  but  in  their  handling  of  the  vexa- 
tious Polish  and  Bohemian  questions  they  failed  completely  and, 
April  4,  they  gave  place  to  the  Moderates  under  the  premiership  of  the 
Polish  Count  Potocki.  The  new  ministry  sought  to  govern  in  a  con- 
ciliatory spirit  and  with  the  support  of  all  groups,  but  its  success  was 
meager.  February  7,  1871,  a  cabinet  which  was  essentially  federalist 
was  constituted  under  Count  Hohenwart.  Its  decentralizing  policies, 
however,  were  of  such  a  character  that  the  racial  question  gave  promise 
of  being  settled  by  the  utter  disintegration  of  the  Empire,  and  after 
eight  months  it  was  dismissed. 

628.  Rule  of  the  German  Liberals,  1871-1879. — With  a  cabinet 
presided  over  by  Prince  Adolf  Auersperg  the  German  Liberals  then 
returned  to  power.  Their  tenure  was  prolonged  to  1879  and  might 
have  been  continued  beyond  that  date  but  for  the  recurrence  of 
factional  strife  within  their  ranks.  The  period  was  one  in  which  some 
of  the  obstructionist  groups,  notably  the  Czechs,  fell  into  division 
among  themselves,  so  that  the  opposition  which  the  Liberals  were 
called  upon  to  encounter  was  distinctly  less  effective  than  otherwise 
it  might  have  been.  At  no  time  since  1867  had  the  Czechs  consented 
to  be  represented  in  the  Reichsrath,  a  body,  indeed,  which  they  had 
persisted  in  refusing  to  recognize  as  a  legitimately  constituted  parlia- 
ment of  the  Empire.  During  the  early  seventies  a  party  of  Young 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  477 

Czechs  sprang  up  which  advocated  an  abandonment  of  passive  re- 
sistance and  the  substitution  of  parliamentary  activity  in  behalf  of 
the  interests  of  the  race.  The  Old  Czechs  were  unprepared  for  such  a 
shift  of  policy,  and  in  1873  they  played  directly  into  the  hands  of  the 
Liberal  government  by  refusing  to  participate  in  the  consideration 
of  the  electoral  reform  by  which  the  choice  of  representatives  was 
taken  from  the  provincial  diets  and  vested  in  the  four  classes  of  pro- 
vincial constituencies.  For  the  carrying  of  this  measure  a  two-thirds 
majority  was  required,  and  if  the  Czechs  had  been  willing  to  vote  at 
all  upon  it  they  might  easily  have  compassed  its  defeat.  As  it  was,  the 
amendment  was  carried  without  difficulty.  A  tenure  of  power  which 
not  even  the  financial  crisis  of  1873  could  break  was,  however,  sacri- 
ficed through  factional  bickerings.  Within  both  the  ministry  and  the 
Reichsrath,  the  dominant  party  broke  into  three  groups,  and  the  up- 
shot was  the  dissolution,  February  6,  1879,  of  the  ministry  and  the 
creation  of  a  new  one  under  the  presidency  of  Count  Taaffe,  long 
identified  with  the  Moderate  element.  Three  months  later  the  House 
of  Representatives  was  dissolved.  In  the  elections  that  followed  the 
Liberals  lost  a  total  of  forty-five  seats,  and  therewith  their  position 
as  the  controlling  party  in  both  the  Reichsrath  and  the  nation.  Taaffe 
retained  the  premiership,  but  his  Liberal  colleagues  were  replaced  by 
Czechs,  Poles,  Clericals,  and  representatives  indeed  of  pretty  nearly 
all  of  the  existing  groups  save  the  Germans.1 

629.  The  Taaffe  Ministry,  1879-1893. — The  prolonged  ministry 
of  Count  Taaffe  comprises  the  second  period  of  Austrian  parlia- 
mentary history.  Of  notably  moderate  temper,  Taaffe  had  never 
been  a  party  man  of  the  usual  sort,  and  he  entered  office  with  an 
honest  purpose  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  nation  without  regard 
to  considerations  of  party  or  of  race.  The  establishment  of  his  recon- 
stituted ministry  was  signalized  by  the  appearance  of  Czech  deputies 
for  the  first  time  upon  the  floor  of  the  national  parliament.  The 
Taaffe  government  found  its  support  in  what  came  to  be  known  as  the 
Right — a  quasi-coalition  of  Poles,  Czechs,  Clericals,  and  the  Slavic 
and  conservative  elements  generally.2  It  was  opposed  by  the  Left, 
comprising  principally  the  German  Liberals.  In  1881  the  various 
factions  of  the  German  party,  impelled  by  the  apprehension  that 
German  ascendancy  might  be  lost  forever,  drew  together  again  and 
entered  upon  a  policy  of  opposition  which  was  dictated  purely  and 

1  As  at  first  reconstituted,  the  ministry  contained  a  German  Liberal,  but  he  soon 
resigned. 

2  In  the  Chamber  the  Czechs,  Poles,  and  Clericals  controlled  each  approximately 
55  votes. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

frankly  by  racial  aspirations.  Attempts  to  embarrass  the  Government 
by  obstruction  proved,  however,  only  indifferently  successful.  In 
1888  the  party  was  once  more  reconstructed. 

Among  the  diverse  groups  by  which  the  Taaffe  government  was 
supported  there  was  just  one  common  interest,  namely,  the  preven- 
tion of  a  return  to  power  on  the  part  of  the  German  Liberals.  Upon 
this  preponderating  consideration,  and  upon  the  otherwise  divergent 
purposes  of  the  Government  groups,  Taaffe  built  his  system.  Main- 
taining rigidly  his  determination  to  permit  no  radical  alteration  of 
the  constitution,  he  none  the  less  extended  favors  freely  to  the  non- 
Germanic  nationalities,  and  so  contrived  to  prolong  through  nearly 
a  decade  and  a  half,  by  federalist  support,  an  essentially  centralist 
government.  Government  consisted  largely,  indeed,  in  perennial 
bargainings  between  the  executive  authorities  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  parliamentary  groups  on  the  other,  and  in  the  course  of  these 
bargainings  it  was  ever  the  legislative  chambers,  not  the  Government, 
that  lost  ground.  The  bureaucracy  increased  its  hold,  the  adminis- 
trative organs  waxed  stronger,  the  power  of  the  Emperor  was  magni- 
fied. The  ministry  became  pre-eminently  the  ministry  of  the  crown, 
and  despite  strictly  observed  constitutional  forms  the  spirit  of  abso- 
lutism was  largely  rehabilitated.1 

630.  The  German  Recovery:  Badeni,  1895-1897. — To  the  eventual 
breakdown  of  the  Taaffe  regime  various  circumstances  contributed. 
Two  of  principal  importance  were  the  defection  of  the  Young  Czechs 
and  the  iailure  of  the  several  attempts  to  draw  to  the  support  of  the 
Government  the  moderate  German  Liberals.  At  the  elections  of  1891 
the  Young  Czechs  obtained  almost  the  entire  quota  of  Bohemian 
seats,  and  at  the  same  tune  the  Liberals  recovered  enough  ground  to 
give  them  the  position  uf  the  preponderant  group  numerically  in  the 
lower  chamber.  Neither  ol  these  two  parties  could  be  persuaded  to 

1  The  forcefully  expressed  view  of  an  em'nent  Austrian  authority,  written  during 
the  parliamentary  deadlock  which  marked  the 'close  of  the  last  century,  is  of  in- 
terest. "His  [Taaffe's]  prolonged  ministry  had  decisive  enects  upon  the  political 
life  of  Austria.  It  rendered  forever  impossible  a  return  to  Germanizing  centralism. 
It  filled  the  administrative  hierarchy  with  Slavs,  who,  remaining  Slavs,  placed  at 
the  service  of  their  national  propaganda  their  official  influence.  In  combatting 
the  Liberal  party  it  restored  the  power  of  the  court,  of  the  aristocracy,  of  the 
Church,  and  it  facilitated  the  obnoxious  restoration  of  clericalism,  by  which  Austria 
to-day  is  dominated.  It  at  the  same  time  aroused  and  corrupted  the  nationalities 
and  the  parties.  It  habituated  them  to  give  rein  unceasingly  to  their  ambitions 
and  to  seek  to  attain  them  less  by  their  own  force  and  labor  than  by  intrigue.  The 
public  demoralization,  illustrated  to-day  so  clearly  by  the  Austrian  crisis,  is  properly 
the  result  of  the  Taaffe  system."  M.  L.  Eisenmann,  in  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  His- 
toire  G6n6rale,  XII.,  177. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  479 

accord  the  Government  its  support,  and  during  1891-1893  Taaffe 
labored  vainly  to  recover  a  working  coalition.  Finally,  in  1893,  as  a 
last  resource,  the  Government  resolved  to  undermine  the  opposi- 
tion, especially  German  Liberalism,  by  the  abolition  of  the  property 
qualification  for  voting  in  the  cities  and  rural  communes.  The 
nature  of  Taaffe's  electoral  reform  bill  of  1893  has  been  explained 
elsewhere,  and  likewise  the  reason  for  its  rejection.1  Anticipat- 
ing the  defeat  of  the  measure,  the  premier  retired  from  office  Octo- 
ber 23,  1893. 

The  Germans  now  recovered,  not  their  earlier  power,  but  none  the 
less  a  distinct  measure  of  control.  November  12  there  was  established, 
under  Prince  Windischgratz  a  coalition  ministry,  comprising  repre- 
sentatives of  the  German  Liberals,  the  Poles,  and  the  Clericals,  and 
this  cabinet  was  very  sucessful  until,  in  June,  1895,  it  was 
wrecked  by  the  secession  of  the  Liberals  on  a  question  of  language 
reform  in  Styria.  After  four  months,  covered  by  the  colorless  ministry 
of  Count  Kielmansegg,  Count  Badeni  became  minister-president 
(October  4,  1895)  and  made  up  a  cabinet,  consisting  largely  of  German 
Liberals,  but  bent  upon  an  essentially  non-partisan  administration.  The 
two  tasks  chiefly  which  devolved  upon  the  Badeni  ministry  were  the 
reform  of  the  electoral  system  and  the  renewal  of  the  decennial  economic 
compromise  with  Hungary,  to  expire  at  the  end  of  1897.  The  first 
was  accomplished,  very  ineffectively,  through  the  electoral  measure  of 
1896;  the  second,  by  reason  of  factional  strife,  was  not  accomplished 
at  all. 

631.  The  Language  Question:  Parliamentary  Deadlock. — The  elec- 
tions of  1897  marked  the  utter  dissolution  of  both  the  United  German 
Left  and  the  coalition  which  had  borne  the  designation  of  the  Right. 
Among  the  200  Germans  elected  to  the  Chamber  there  were  distinguish- 
able no  fewer  than  eight  groups;  and  the  number  of  groups  represented 
in  the  aggregate  membership  of  425  was  at  least  twenty-four.  Of  these 
the  most  powerful  were  the  Young  Czechs,  with  60  seats,  and  the  Poles, 
with  59.  Profiting  by  the  recently  enacted  electoral  law,  the  Socialists 
at  this  point  made  their  first  appearance  in  the  Reichsrath  with  a  total 
of  14  seats.  Taking  the  Chamber  as  a  whole,  there  was  a  Slavo-Clerical 
majority,  although  not  the  two-thirds  requisite  for  the  enactment  of 
constitutional  amendments.  The  radical  opponents  of  the  Govern- 
ment were  represented  by  the  51  German  Liberals  only.  But  no  one 
of  the  Slavic  groups  was  disposed  to  accord  its  support  save  in  return 
for  favors  received.  In  the  attempt  to  procure  for  itself  a  dependable 
majority  the  Badeni  government  succeeded  but  in  creating  confusion 

1  See  p.  467. 


480  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

twice  confounded.  The  Young  Czechs,  whose  support  appeared  indis- 
pensable, stipulated  as  a  positive  condition  of  that  support  that  Czech 
should  be  recognized  as  an  official  language  in  Bohemia  and  Moravia, 
and  by  ordinances  of  April-May,  1897,  the  Government  took  it  upon 
itself  to  meet  this  condition.  Within  the  provinces  named  the  two 
languages,  Czech  and  German,  were  placed,  for  official  purposes  upon 
a  common  footing.  The  only  result,  however,  was  to  drive  the 
Germans,  already  hostile,  to  a  settled  course  of  parliamentary  ob- 
struction, and  before  the  year  was  out  the  Badeni  cabinet  was  com- 
pelled to  retire. 

The  Gautsch  ministry  which  succeeded  proposed  to  maintain  the 
equality  of  the  Czech  and  German  tongues  in  Bohemia;  wherefore  the 
German  Liberals  persisted  in  their  obstructionist  policy  and  declared 
that  they  would  continue  to  do  so  until  the  objectionable  ordinances 
should  have  been  rescinded.  March  5,  1898,  the  Government  pro- 
mulgated a  provisional  decree  in  accordance  with  which  in  one  portion 
of  Bohemia  the  official  tongue  was  to  be  Czech,  in  another  German, 
and  in  the  third  the  two  together.  But  no  one  was  satisfied  and  the 
ministry  resigned.  The  coalition  government  of  Count  Thun  Hohen- 
stein  which  succeeded  labored  in  the  interest  of  conciliation,  but  with 
absolutely  no  success.  Parliamentary  sittings  became  but  occasions 
for  the  display  of  obstructive  tactics,  and  even  for  resort  to  violence, 
and  legislation  came  to  a  standstill.  By  the  vise  of  every  known  device 
the  turbulent  German  parties  rendered  impossible  the  passage  of  even  the 
most  necessary  money  bills,  and  the  upshot  was  that,  hi  the  summer  of 
1898,  the  Government  was  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  that  extraordinary 
portion  of  the  Austrian  constitution,  commonly  known  as  Section  14, 
by  which,  in  default  of  parliamentary  legislation,  the  crown  is  authorized 
to  promulgate  ordinances  with  the  force  of  law.  The  period  of  extra 
parliamentary  government  here  inaugurated  was  destined  to  be  extended 
through  more  than  six  years  and  to  comprise  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
chapters  in  recent  political  history. 

632.  The  Nadir  of  Parliamentarism. — Following  the  retirement  of 
the  Thun  Hohenstein  ministry,  at  the  end  of  September,  1899,  the 
government  of  Count  Clary- Aldingen  revoked  the  language  decrees; 
but  the  parliamentary  situation  was  not  improved,  for  the  Czechs 
resorted  forthwith  to  the  same  obstructionist  tactics  of  which  the 
Germans  had  been  guilty  and  the  government  had  still  to  be  operated 
principally  on  the  basis  of  Section  14.  A  provisional  government  under 
Dr.  Wittek,  at  the  close  of  1899,  was  followed  by  the  ministry  of 
Dr.  Korber,  established  January  20, 1900;  but  all  attempts  at  concilia- 
tion continued  to  be  unavailing.  In  September,  1900,  the  Reichsrath 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  481 

was  dissolved  and  the  order  for  the  new  elections  was  accompanied  by 
the  ominous  declaration  of  the  Emperor  that  the  present  appeal  to  the 
nation  would  be  the  last  constitutional  means  which  would  be  em- 
ployed to  bring  the  crisis  to  an  end.  Amid  widespread  depression, 
threats  of  Hungarian  independence,  and  rumors  of  an  impending 
coup  d'etat,  the  elections  took  place,  in  January,  1901.  The  German  par- 
ties realized  the  largest  gains,  but  the  parliamentary  situation  was  not 
materially  altered,  and  thereafter,  until  its  fall,  December  31,  1904, 
the  Korber  ministry  continued  to  govern  substantially  without  parlia- 
mentary assistance.  In  1901-1902,  by  various  promises,  the  premier 
induced  the  combatants  to  lay  aside  their  animosities  long  enough  to 
vote  the  yearly  estimates,  a  military  contingent,  and  certain  much- 
needed  economic  reforms.  But  this  was  virtually  the  sole  interruption 
of  a  six-year  deadlock. 

633.  Electoral  Reform  and  the  Elections  of  1907. — With  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  second  Gautsch  ministry,  December  31,  1904,  a  truce 
was  declared  and  interest  shifted  to  the  carrying  out  of  the  Imperial 
programme  of  electoral  reform.  From  the  proposed  liberalization  of 
the  suffrage  many  of  the  party  groups  were  certain  to  profit  and  others 
had  at  least  a  chance  of  doing  so;  and  thus  it  came  about  that  the  great 
electoral  law  of  1907  was  carried  through  its  various  stages  under  parlia- 
mentary conditions  which  were  substantially  normal.  Its  progress  was 
attended  by  the  fall,  in  April,  1906,  of  the  Gautsch  ministry  and,  six 
weeks  later,  by  that  of  its  provisional  successor.  But  by  the  coalition 
government  of  Baron  Beck  (June  2,  1906  to  November  8,  1908)  the 
project  was  pushed  to  a  successful  conclusion,  and  in  its  final  form  the 
law  was  approved  by  the  Emperor,  January  26,  1907. 

The  promulgation  of  the  new  electoral  measure  was  followed,  May  14, 
by  a  general  election,  the  results  of  which  may  be  tabulated  as  shown 
on  the  following  page. 

Each  of  the  twenty-six  groups  here  enumerated  maintained  at  the 
time  of  the  election  an  independent  party  organization,  although  in  the 
Chamber  the  representatives  of  certain  of  them  were  accustomed  to  act 
in  close  co-operation.  To  the  clericals  and  conservatives  of  all  shades 
fell  an  aggregate  of  230  seats;  but  among  the  various  groups  of  this  type 
there  has  never  been  sufficient  coherence  to  permit  the  formation  of  a 
compact  conservative  party.  Among  the  liberal  and  radical  groups 
lack  of  coherence  was,  and  remains,  still  more  pronounced.  The  most 
striking  feature  of  the  election  of  1907  was  the  gains  made  by  the  Social 
Democrats  and  the  Christian  Socialists,  to  be  explained  largely  by  the 
extension  of  the  franchise  to  the  non-taxpaying  and  small  taxpaying 
population. 


482  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Seats  after  Seats  in 

election  of  previous 

1907  Chamber 

Social  Democrats 90  n 

Christian  Socialists 67  26 

German  Clericals 29  29 

German  Progressives 23  60 

German  Radicals 24  46 

German  Agrarians 21  4 

Independent  Pan-Germans 8  7 

Pan-Germans 3  15 

Polish  Club 54  66 

Polish  Radicals 16  o 

Polish  Independent  Socialists 3  o 

Ruthenes 28  9 

Jewish  Zionists 3  o 

Young  Czechs 19  47 

Old  Czechs 6  3 

Czech  Realists 2  o 

Czech  Agrarians 25  5 

Czech  Clerical 19  2 

Czech  Radicals 10  8 

Slovene  Clericals 22  19 

Slovene  Liberals 3  6 

Italian  Liberals 4  12 

Italian  Clericals 10  6 

Croats 9  7 

Serbs 2  o 

Roumanians 5  4 

534.  The  Elections  of  1911. —  The  truce  by  which  the  election  of 
1907  was  accompanied  was  not  of  long  duration,  and  November  8, 1908, 
the  ministry  of  Baron  Beck  was  driven  by  German  obstructionism  to 
resign.  After  three  months  as  provisional  premier  Baron  von  Bienerth, 
former  Minister  of  the  Interior,  made  up  a  cabinet  which  included 
representatives  of  a  number  of  parties  and  which,  despite  occasional 
readjustments  of  portfolios,  exhibited  a  fair  measure  of  stability 
throughout  upwards  of  two  years.  In  December,  1910,  the  Czechs 
and  Poles  precipitated  a  cabinet  crisis  in  consequence  of  which  the 
ministry  was  reconstructed  (January  9,  1911)  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
strengthen  the  Slavic  and  weaken  the  Germanic  element.  But  the 
forces  of  opposition  were  not  appeased,  and  as  a  last  resort  the  Govern- 
ment determined  upon  a  dissolution  and  an  appeal  to  the  country. 
The  results,  however,  were  by  no  means  those  which  were  desired. 
At  the  general  elections,  which  took  place  June  13  and  20,  the  Christian 
Socialists,  from  whom  the  Government  had  drawn  its  most  consistent 
support,  were  roundly  beaten,  and  June  26  Baron  von  Bienerth  and 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  483 

his  colleagues  resigned.  The  ministry  thereupon  made  up  was  pre- 
sided over  by  Baron  Gautsch.  It,  however,  endured  only  until 
October  31,  when  it  was  succeeded  by  that  of  Count  Stuergkh. 

The  elections  of  1911  were  hotly  contested.  The  516  seats  to  be 
filled  were  sought  by  2,987  candidates,  representing  no  fewer  than 
fifty-one  parties  and  factions,  and  second  ballotings  were  required  in 
almost  two-thirds  of  the  constituencies.  The  Czechs  returned  with 
undiminished  strength,  and  the  German  Radicals  and  Progressives 
realized  substantial  gains.  The  most  notable  feature,  however,  was 
the  victory  of  the  Social  Democrats  over  the  Christian  Socialists, 
especially  in  the  capital,  where  the  quota  of  deputies  of  the  one  party 
was  raised  from  ten  to  nineteen  and  that  of  the  other  was  cut  from 
twenty  to  four.  The  Christian  Socialists,  it  must  be  observed,  are  not 
socialists  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  term.  The  party  was  founded 
by  Dr.  Liiger  a  few  years  ago  in  the  hope  that,  despite  the  establish- 
ment of  manhood  suffrage  in  the  Empire,  the  Social  Democrats  might 
yet  be  prevented  from  acquiring  a  primacy  among  the  German  parties. 
It  is  composed  largely  of  clericals,  and  in  tone  and  purpose  it  is  essen- 
tially reactionary.  By  maintaining  an  active  alliance  with  the  German 
Clerical  party  it  contrived  to  hold  in  check  the  Social  Democracy 
throughout  the  larger  portion  of  the  period  1907-1911.  But  it  was 
handicapped  all  the  while  by  internal  dissension,  and  the  defeat  which 
it  suffered  at  the  last  elections  has  relegated  it,  at  least  for  the  time 
being,  to  a  subordinate  place.1 

V.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

635.  General  Principles:  the  Ordinary  Tribunals. — All  judicial 
power  in  the  Austrian  Empire  is  exercised,  and  all  judgments  and 
sentences  are  executed,  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor.  Judges  are 
appointed  for  life,  by  the  Emperor  or  in  his  name,  and  they  may  be 

1  On  Austrian  party  politics  see  Lowell,  Governments  and  Parties,  II.,  94-123; 
Drage,  Austria-Hungary,  Chaps,  i,  3,  12;  K.  Schwechler,  Die  osterreichische 
Sozialdemokratie  (Graz,  1907);  S.  Marmorek,  L'Obstruction  au  parlement  au- 
trichien  (Paris,  1908);  and  E.  Bene"s,  Le  probl£me  autrichien  et  la  question  teh6que; 
6tude  sur  les  luttes  politiques  des  nationalites  slaves  en  Autriche  (Paris,  1908). 
Among  valuable  articles  in  periodicals  may  be  mentioned:  W.  Beaumont,  La  crise 
du  parlementarisme  au  Autriche;  les  elections  legislatives  et  la  situation  politique, 
in  Annalesdes  Sciences  Politiques,  March  15, 1901;  K.  Kramer,  La  situation  politique 
en  Autriche,  ibid.,  October  15,  1901;  G.  L.  Jaray,  L' Autriche  nouvelle:  sentiments 
nationaux  et  preoccupations  sociales,  ibid.,  May  15  and  Sept.  15,  1908,  and  La 
physionomie  nouvelle  de  la  question  austro-hongroise,  in  Questions  Diplomatique? 
et  Coloniales,  Dec.  16,  1910;  Kolmer,  La  vie  politique  et  parlementaire  en  Autriche, 
in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  July  10,  1911;  and  G.  Blondel,  Les  derni£res 
Elections  en  Autriche-Hongrie,  in  La  Reforme  Sociale,  Aug.  i  and  15,  1911. 


484  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

removed  from  office  only  under  circumstances  specified  by  law  and  by 
virtue  of  a  formal  judicial  sentence.  On  taking  the  oath  of  office  all 
judicial  officials  are  required  to  pledge  themselves  to  an  inviolable 
observance  of  the  fundamental  laws.  The  Law  of  December  21, 1867, 
concerning  the  Judicial  Power  withholds  from  the  courts  the  power 
to  pronounce  upon  the  validity  of  statutes  properly  promulgated, 
though  they  may  render  judgment  on  the  validity  of  Imperial  ordi- 
nances involved  in  cases  before  them.1  With  some  exceptions,  fixed 
by  law,  proceedings  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases  are  required  to  be 
oral  and  public;  and  in  all  cases  involving  severe  penalties,  as  well  as 
in  all  actions  arising  from  political  crimes  and  misdemeanors  and 
offenses  committed  by  the  press,  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused 
must  be  determined  by  jury. 

By  the  law  of  1867  it  is  stipulated  that  there  shall  be  maintained  at 
Vienna  a  Supreme  Court  of  Justice  and  Cassation  (Oberste  Gerichts- 
und  Kassationshof)  for  all  of  the  kingdoms  and  countries  represented 
in  the  Reichsrath,  and  that  the  organization  and  jurisdiction  of  inferior 
courts  shall  be  determined  by  law,  Of  inferior  tribunals  there  have 
been  established  9  higher  provincial  courts  (Oberlandesgerichte),2  74 
provincial  and  district  courts  (Landes-und  Kreisgerichte) ,  and  96 
county  courts  (Bezirksgerichte).  The  provincial  and  district  courts 
.and  the  county  courts,  together  with  a  group  of  jury  courts  main- 
tained in  connection  with  the  provincial  and  district  tribunals,  are 
•courts  of  first  instance;  the  higher  provincial  courts  and  the  Supreme 
Court  exercise  a  jurisdiction  that  is  almost  wholly  appellate.  There 
exist  also  special  courts  for  commercial,  industrial,  military,  fiscal, 
and  other  varieties  of  jurisdiction. 

536.  The  Imperial  Court. — In  Austria,  as  in  France  and  other 
continental  countries,  cases  affecting  administration  and  the  adminis- 
trative officials  are  withheld  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary 
courts  and  are  committed  to  special  administrative  tribunals.  By 
law  of  1867  provision  was  made  for  an  Imperial  Court  (Reichsgericht) , 
to  exercise  final  decision  in  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  the  two 
sets  of  courts  and,  in  general,  in  all  disputed  questions  of  public  law, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Court  of  Conflicts  in  France.  The  Imperial 
Court  was  organized  by  law  of  April  18,  1869.  It  sits  at  Vienna,  and 
it  is  composed  of  a  president  and  deputy  president,  appointed  by  the 
Emperor  for  life,  and  of  twelve  members  and  four  substitutes,  also 
appointed  for  life  by  the  Emperor  upon  nomination  by  the  Reichsrath. 

1  Art.  7.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  86. 

2  Located  at  Vienna,  Graz,  Trieste,  Innsbruck,  Zara,  Prague,  Briinn,  Cracow, 
and  Lemberg. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  48$ 

It  decides  finally  all  conflicts  of  competence  between  the  administra- 
tive and  the  ordinary  judicial  tribunals,  between  a  provincial  diet 
and  the  Imperial  authorities,  and  between  the  independent  public 
authorities  of  the  several  provinces  of  the  Empire.  Very  important 
in  a  country  so  dominated  by  a  bureaucracy  as  is  Austria  is  the  power 
which  by  fundamental  law  is  vested  in  the  Imperial  Court  to  pass 
final  verdict  upon  the  merits  of  all  complaints  of  citizens  arising  out 
of  the  alleged  violation  of  political  rights  guaranteed  to  them  by  the 
constitution,  after  the  matter  shall  have  been  made  the  subject  of  an 
administrative  decision.  The  purpose  involved  is  to  afford  the  citizen 
who,  believing  himself  deprived  of  his  constitutional  rights,  has  failed 
to  obtain  redress  in  the  administrative  courts,  an  opportunity  to  have 
his  case  reviewed  by  a  tribunal  constituted  with  special  view  to  per- 
manence, independence,  and  impartiality.  High-handed  administra- 
tive acts  which  are  covered  by  statute,  however,  are  beyond  its  reach, 
for,  like  all  Austrian  tribunals,  it  is  forbidden  to  question  the  validity 
of  a  duly  promulgated  law.1 

637.  The  Provincial  Governments:  Composition  of  the  Diet. — Each 
of  the  seventeen  political  divisions  of  the  Empire  has  a  government  of 
its  own,  established  on  the  basis  of  its  Landesordnung,  or  provincial 
constitution.  The  executive,  for  affairs  that  are  considered  strictly 
divisional,  consists  of  a  provincial  council,  the  Landesausschuss,  com- 
posed of  the  president  of  the  diet  (nominated  by  the  Emperor)  as  ex- 
officio  chairman  and  from  four  to  eight  members  variously  elected 
within  the  province.  Imperial  interests  are  specially  represented  in 
the  province,  however,  by  a  Statthalter,  or  Landesprdsident,  appointed 
by  the  crown,  and  independent  of  local  control. 

Functions  of  legislation  are  vested  in  a  Landtag,  or  diet.  The 
provincial  diet  of  the  modern  type  came  into  being  under  the  operation 
of  the  Imperial  diploma  of  October  20,  1860  (superseded  by  that  of 
February  26, 1861),  replacing  the  ancient  assembly  of  estates  which  in 
most  provinces  had  persisted  until  1848.  From  1860  onwards  diets 
were  established  in  one  after  another  of  the  provinces,  until  eventually 
all  were  so  equipped.  Originally  the  diets  were  substantially  uniform 
in  respect  to  both  composition  and  powers.  Aside  from  certain  ex- 
officio  members,  they  were  composed  of  deputies  chosen  for  six  years 
by  four  electoral  curiae:  the  great  proprietors,  the  chambers  of  com- 
merce, the  towns,  and  the  rural  communes;  and,  until  1873,  one  of 
their  principal  functions  was  the  election  of  the  provincial  delegation  in 
the  lower  house  of  the  Reichsrath.  Each  of  the  seventeen  provincial 
diets  as  to-day  constituted  consists  of  a  single  chamber,  and  in  most 
1  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  84-85. 


486  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

instances  the  body  is  composed  of  (i)  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of 
the  Catholic  and  Orthodox  Greek  churches;  (2)  the  rectors  of  univer- 
sities, and,  in  Galicia,  the  rector  of  the  technical  high  school  of  Lemberg 
and  the  president  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  of  Cracow;  (3)  the 
representatives  of  great  estates,  elected  by  all  landowners  paying  land 
taxes  of  not  less  than  100,  200,  400,  or  500  crowns,  according  to  the 
provinces  in  which  their  estates  are  situated;  (4)  the  representatives 
of  towns,  elected  by  citizens  who  possess  municipal  rights  or  pay  a 
stipulated  amount  of  direct  taxes;  (5)  the  representatives  of  boards 
of  commerce  and  industry,  chosen  by  the  members  of  these  bodies; 
and  (6)  representatives  of  the  rural  communes,  elected  in  eight  prov- 
inces directly,  in  the  others  indirectly,  by  deputies  (Wahlmanner) 
returned  by  all  inhabitants  who  pay  direct  taxes  to  the  amount  of  8 
crowns  yearly.  In  a  few  of  the  provinces  there  is,  besides  these,  a 
general  electoral  class  composed  of  all  qualified  male  subjects  of  the 
state  over  twenty-four  years  of  age; 1  and  there  are  some  other  varia- 
tions, as  for  example,  in  Moravia,  where,  by  a  law  of  November  27, 
1905,  the  proportional  system  of  representation  was  introduced.  The 
diets  vary  in  membership  from  26  in  Vorarlberg  and  30  in  Gorz  and 
Gradisca  to  151  in  Moravia,  161  in  Galicia,  and  242  in  Bohemia. 
The  deputies  are  elected  in  all  cases  for  a  period  of  six  years,  and  the 
diets  assemble  annually.  But  a  session  may  be  closed,  and  the  diet 
may  be  dissolved,  at  any  time  by  the  presiding  officer,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Emperor. 

638.  Functions  of  the  Diet. —  The  powers  of  the  diets  are  not  enu- 
merated, but,  rather,  are  residual.  By  fundamental  law  of  1867  it  is 
stipulated  that  "all  matters  of  legislation  other  than  those  expressly 
reserved  to  the  Reichsrath  by  the  present  law  belong  within  the  power 
of  the  Provincial  Diets  of  the  kingdoms  and  countries  represented  in 
the  Reichsrath  and  are  constitutionally  regulated  by  such  Diets."  2 

1  When  the  class  system  of  voting  for  members  of  the  Reichsrath  was  on  the  point 
of  being  abolished  by  the  law  of  January  26,  1907,  there  was  raised  the  question  as 
to  whether  a  similar  step  should  not  be  taken  in  respect  to  provincial  elections. 
It  was  generally  agreed,  however,  that  the  absence  of  an  aristocratic  upper  chamber 
in  the  provincial  diet  renders  the  class  system  within  the  province  not  wholly 
undesirable.    The  provinces  were  encouraged  to  liberalize  their  franchise  regula- 
tions, but  not  to  abandon  the  prevailing  electoral  system.    The  province  of  Lower 
Austria  led  the  way  by  increasing  the  membership  of  its  diet  from  79  to  127,  to  b* 
elected  as  follows:  58  by  manhood  suffrage  throughout  the  province,  31  by  the 
rural  communes,  16  by  the  large  landholders,  15  by  the  towns,  and  4  by  the  cham- 
bers of  commerce.    Two  bishops  and  the  rector  of  the  University  of  Vienna  were 
continued  as  members. 

2  Law  of  December  21,  1867,  concerning  Imperial  Representation,  §  12.    Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  79. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  AUSTRIA  487 

In  certain  matters,  naturally  those  of  an  essentially  local  character, 
the  diet  may  act  with  absolute  freedom,  save  that  it  is  within  the  com- 
petence of  the  Emperor  to  veto  any  of  its  measures.  In  other  matters, 
such  as  education  and  finance,  which  fall  within  the  range  of  the 
Reichsrath's  competence,  the  powers  of  the  diet  are  limited  and  sub- 
sidiary. A  policy  very  generally  pursued  has  been  that  of  formulating 
at  Vienna  general  regulations  for  the  entire  Empire,  leaving  to  the 
diets  the  task  of  devising  legislation  of  a  local  and  specific  character 
for  the  execution  of  these  regulations;  though  it  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained that  the  results  have  been  satisfactory.  The  diets  are  not 
infrequently  radical,  and  even  turbulent,  bodies,  and  it  has  been 
deemed  expedient  ordinarily  by  the  Imperial  authorities  to  maintain 
a  close  watch  upon  their  proceedings. 

639.  The  Commune. —  Throughout  the  Empire  the  vital  unit  of 
local  government  is  the  commune.  As  is  true  of  the  province,  the 
commune  is  an  administrative  district,  and  one  of  its  functions  is 
that  of  serving  as  an  agency  of  the  central  government  in  the  conduct 
of  public  affairs.  Fundamentally,  however,  the  commune  is  an  auton- 
omous organism,  rooted  in  local  interest  and -tradition.  As  such,  it 
exercises  broad  powers  of  community  control.  It  makes  provision 
for  the  safety  of  person  and  property,  for  the  maintenance  of  the  local 
peace,  for  the  supervision  of  traffic,  for  elementary  and  secondary 
education,  and  for  a  variety  of  other  local  interests.  Except  in  respect 
to  affairs  managed  by  the  commune  as  agent  of  the  Imperial  govern- 
ment, the  local  authorities  are  exempt  from  discipline  at  the  hand  of 
their  superiors,  and,  indeed,  an  eminent  Austrian  authority  has  gone 
so  far  as  to  maintain  that  the  communes  of  Austria  possess  a  larger 
independent  competence  than  do  the  communes  of  any  other  European 
state.1 

Except  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  larger  towns,  which  have  special 
constitutions,  the  rural  and  urban  communes  of  the  Empire  are  or- 
ganized upon  the  same  pattern.  The  executive  authority  is  vested  in 
an  elective  committee,  or  council,  presided  over  by  a  Vorsteher,  or 
burgomaster,  chosen  from  the  members  of  the  committee.  The 
Vorsteher  is  not  removable  by  the  central  authorities,  and  over  his 
election  they  possess  no  control.  In  certain  of  the  towns  the  place  of 
the  communal  committee  is  taken  by  a  corporation.  In  every  com- 
mune there  is  an  assembly  (the  Gemeindevertretung) ,  the  members  of 
which  are  elected  for  three  (in  Galicia  six)  years  by  all  resident  citizens 
who  are  payers  of  a  direct  tax.  For  the  purpose  of  electing  assembly- 

1J.  Redlich,  Das  Wesen  der  osterreichischen  Kommunalverfassung  (Leipzig, 
1910). 


488  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

men  the  voters  are  divided  into  three  classes,  very  much  as  under  the 
Prussian  electoral  system,  and  this  arrangement,  indeed,  comprises 
virtually  the  only  non-democratic  aspect  of  the  communal  constitu- 
tion. In  Galicia,  Styria,  and  Bohemia  there  exists  also  a  district 
assembly,  elected  for  three  years  (in  Galicia  six)  and  made  up  of 
representatives  of  great  estates,  the  most  highly  taxed  industries  and 
trades,  towns  and  markets,  and  rural  communes.  A  committee  of 
this  body,  known  as  the  Bezirksausschuss,  administers  the  affairs  of 
the  district. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 
THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY 

I.  THE  CONSTITUTION 

640.  Antiquity. — By  reason  of  both  its  antiquity  and  its  adaptabil- 
ity to  varying  conditions,  the  constitution  of  the  kingdom  of  Hungary 
deserves  to  be  considered  one  of  the  most  remarkable  instruments  of 
its  kind.    Like  the  fundamental  law  of  England,  it  is  embodied  in  a 
maze  of  ancient  statutes  and  customs,  and  it  is  the  distinctive  creation 
of  a  people  possessed  of  a  rare  genius  for  politics  and  government.   On 
the  documentary  side  its  history  is  to  be  traced  at  least  to  the  Golden 
Bull  of  Andrew  II.,  promulgated  in  1222;  though  that  instrument,  like 
the  contemporary  Great  Charter  in  England,  comprised  only  a  con- 
firmation of  national  liberties  that  were  already  old.1   Under  Hapsburg 
domination,  from  the  early  sixteenth  century  onwards,  the  fundamen- 
tal political  system  and  the  long  established  laws  of  the  Hungarian 
kingdom  were  repeatedly  guaranteed.    Much  of  the  time  they  were, 
in  practice,  disregarded;  but  the  nationalistic  vigor  of  the  Hungarian 
people  invested  them  with  unlimited  power  of  survival,  and  even  dur- 
ing the  reactionary  second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  they 
were  but  held  in  suspense. 

641.  Texts:  the  "  March  Laws." — In  large  part,  the  constitution  to- 
day in  operation  took  final  form  in  a  series  of  measures  enacted  by  the 
Hungarian  parliament  during  the  uprising  of  1848.    Thirty-one  laws, 
in  all,  were  at  that  time  passed,  revising  the  organization  of  the  legisla- 
tive chambers,  widening  the  suffrage,  creating  a  responsible  cabinet, 
abolishing  feudal  survivals,  and  modernizing,  in  general,  the  institu- 
tions of  the  kingdom.    The  broad  lines  which  remained  were  those 
marked  out  in  the  ancient  constitutional  order;  the  new  measures 
merely  supplemented,  revised,  and  imparted  definite  form  to  pre- 
existing laws,  customs,  and  jealously  guarded  rights.    Not  all  of  these 
inherited  constitutional  elements,  however,  were  included  in  the  new 

1  There  is  an  interesting  comparative  study  of  the  Bulla  Aurea  and  the  Great 
Charter  in  E.  Hantos,  The  Magna  Carta  of  the  English  and  of  the  Hungarian  Con- 
stitution (London,  1904). 

489 


490  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

statutes;  and  to  this  day  it  is  true  that  in  Hungary,  as  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, a  considerable  portion  of  the  constitution  has  never  been  put  into 
written  form.  The  fate  of  the  measures  of  1848  was  for  a  time  adverse. 
The  Austrian  recovery  in  1849  remanded  Hungary  to  the  status  of  a 
subject  province,  and  it  was  not  until  1867,  after  seven  years  of  ardu- 
ous experimentation,  that  the  constitution  of  1848  was  permitted 
again  to  come  into  operation.  The  Ausgleich  involved  as  one  of  its 
fundamentals  a  guarantee  for  all  time  of  the  laws,  constitution,  legal 
independence,  freedom,  and  territorial  integrity  of  Hungary  and 
its  subordinate  countries.  And  throughout  all  of  the  unsettlement 
and  conflict  which  the  past  half-century  has  brought  in  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  world  the  constitution  of  kingdom  and  empire  alike  has 
stood  firm  against  every  shock.  The  documents  in  which,  chiefly,  the 
written  constitution  is  contained  are:  (i)  Law  III.  of  1848  concerning 
the  Formation  of  a  Responsible  Hungarian  Ministry;  (2)  Law  IV.  of 
1848  concerning  Annual  Sessions  of  the  Diet;  (3)  Law  XXXIII.  of  1874 
concerning  the  Modification  and  Amendment  of  Law  V.  of  1848,  and 
of  the  Transylvanian  Law  II.  of  1848;  and  (4)  Law  VII.  of  1885  altering 
the  organization  of  the  Table  of  Magnates.1 

1  The  texts  of  all  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  Hungary  at  present  in  operation  are 
printed  in  G.  Steinbach,  Die  ungarischen  Verfassungsgesetze  fod  ed.,  Vienna,  1900). 
English  translations  of  the  more  important  are  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I., 
93-111.  The  standard  treatise  on  the  Hungarian  constitutional  system  is  S.  Rado- 
Rotheld,  Die  ungarische  Verfassung  (Berlin,  1898),  upon  which  is  based  A.  de 
Bertha,  La  constitution  hongroise  (Paris,  1898).  In  both  of  these  works  the  Magyar 
domination  in  Hungary  is  regarded  with  favor.  A  readable  book  is  A.  de  Bertha, 
La  Hongrie  moderne  de  1849  &  1901;  £tude  historique  (Paris,  1901).  An  older 
treatise,  in  three  volumes,  is  A.  von  Virozil,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigsreichs  Un- 
garn  (Pest,  1865-1866).  Valuable  works  of  more  recent  publication  include 
G.  Steinbach,  Die  ungarischen  Verfassungsgesetze  (Vienna,  1906);  A.  Timon,  Un- 
garisehe  Verfassungs-und  Rechtsgeschichte  (2d  ed.,  Berlin,  1908);  H.  Marczoll, 
Ungarisches  Verfassungsrecht  (Tubingen,  1909);  and  especially  G.  von  Ferdinandy, 
Staats  und  Verwaltungsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Ungarn  und  seiner  Nebenlander 
(Hanover,  1909).  Worthy  of  mention  is  P.  Matter,  La  constitution  hongroise, 
in  Annales  de  V&cole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July  15,  1889,  and  April  15, 
1890.  Excellent  discussions  for  English  readers  will  be  found  in  J.  Andrassy,  The 
Development  of  Hungarian  Constitutional  Liberty  (London,  1908);  C.  M.  Knatch- 
bull-Hugessen,  The  Political  Evolution  of  the  Hungarian  Nation  (London,  1908); 
and  P.  Alden  (ed.),  Hungary  of  To-day  (London  and  New  York,  1910).  The  cele- 
bration, in  1896,  of  the  thousandth  anniversary  of  the  establishment  of  the  Magyars 
in  Europe  was  made  the  occasion  of  the  publication  of  a  multitude  of  more  or  less 
popular  books  devoted,  as  a  rule,  to  a  review  of  Hungarian  national  development. 
Among  them  may  be  mentioned:  A.  Vamb6ry,  Hungary  in  Ancient  and  Modern 
Times  (London,  1897);  R.  Chelard,  La  Hongrie  millenaire  (Paris,  1906);  and  M.  Gel- 
leri,  Aus  der  Vergangenheit  und  Gegenwart  des  tausendjahrigen  Ungarn  (Budapest, 
1896). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  491 

II.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

642.  The  Working  Executive. — The  constitutional  arrangements 
respecting  the  executive  branch  of  the  Hungarian  government  are 
set  forth  principally  in  Law  III.  of  1848  "concerning  the  Formation 
of  a  Responsible  Hungarian  Ministry."    The  king  attains  his  position 
ipsojure,  by  reason  of  being  Emperor  of  Austria,  without  the  necessity 
of  any  distinct  act  of  public  law.    Within  six  months  of  his  accession 
at  Vienna  he  is  crowned  monarch  of  Hungary  at  Budapest,  in  a  special 
ceremony  in  which  is  used  the  crown  sent  by  Pope  Sylvester  II.  up- 
wards of  a  thousand  years  ago  to  King  Stephen.    The  new  sovereign 
is  required  to  proffer  Parliament  an  "inaugural  certificate,"  as  well 
as  to  take  a  coronation  oath,  to  the  effect  that  he  will  maintain  the 
fundamental  laws  and  liberties  of  the  country;  and  both  of  these 
instruments  are  incorporated  among  the  officially  published  documents 
of  the  realm.    The  entire  proceeding  partakes  largely  of  the  character 
of  a  contractual  arrangement  between  nation  and  sovereign. 

As  in  Austria,  the  powers  of  the  crown  are  exercised  very  largely 
through  the  ministry.  And,  by  reason  of  the  peculiar  safeguards  in 
the  Hungarian  laws  against  royal  despotism,  as  well  as  the  all  but 
uninterrupted  absence  of  the  king  from  the  dominion,  the  ministry 
at  Budapest  not  only  constitutes  the  Hungarian  executive  in  every 
real  sense,  but  it  operates  on  a  much  more  purely  parliamentary  basis 
than  does  its  counterpart  at  Vienna.  "His  Majesty,"  says  the  law  of 
1848,  "shall  exercise  the  executive  power  in  conformity  with  law, 
through  the  independent  Hungarian  ministry,  and  no  ordinance,  order, 
decision,  or  appointment  shall  have  force  unless  it  is  countersigned  by 
one  of  the  ministers  residing  at  Budapest."  1  Every  measure  of  the 
crown  must  be  countersigned  by  a  minister;  and  every  minister  is 
immediately  and  actually  responsible  to  Parliament  for  all  of  his 
official  acts. 

643.  Composition  and  Status  of  the  Ministry. — The  ministry  con- 
sists of  a  president  of  the  council,  or  premier,  and  the  heads  of  nine 
departments,  as  follows:  Finance,  National  Defense,  Interior,  Educa- 
tion and  Public  Worship,  Justice,  Industry  and  Commerce,  Agricul- 
ture, the  Ministry  for  Croatia  and  Slavonia,  and  the  Ministry  near 
the  King's  Person.    The  last-mentioned  portfolio  exists  by  virtue  of 
the  constitutional  requirement  that  "one  of  the  ministers  shall  always 
be  in  attendance  upon  the  person  of  His  Majesty,  and  shall  take  part 
in  all  affairs  which  are  common  to  Hungary  and  the  hereditary  prov- 
inces, and  in  such  affairs  he  shall,  under  his  responsibility,  represent 

1  Law  III.  of  1848,  §  3.    Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I.,  94. 


492  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Hungary."  1  All  ministers  are  appointed  by  the  king,  on  nomination 
of  the  premier.  All  have  seats  in  Parliament  and  must  be  heard  in 
either  chamber  when  they  desire  to  speak.  They  are  bound,  indeed, 
to  attend  the  sessions  of  either  house  when  requested,  to  submit 
official  papers  for  examination,  and  to  give  "proper  explanations" 
respecting  governmental  policies.  They  may  be  impeached  by  vote 
of  a  majority  of  the  lower  chamber,  in  which  event  the  trial  is  held 
before  a  tribunal  of  twelve  judges  chosen  by  secret  ballot  by  the  upper 
house  from  among  its  own  members.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  lower 
house  has  acquired  the  power  by  a  simple  vote  of  want  of  confidence 
to  compel  a  cabinet  to  resign,  the  right  of  impeachment  possesses  in 
practice  small  value.  The  ministry  is  required  to  submit  once  a  year 
to  the  lower  house  for  its  examination  and  approval  a  statement  of  the 
income  and  needs  of  the  country,  together  with  an  account  of  the  in- 
come administered  by  it  during  the  past  twelve  months.2 

III.  PARLIAMENT — THE  ELECTORAL  SYSTEM 

644.  The  Table  of  Magnates. — The  Hungarian  parliament  consists 
of  two  houses,  whose  official  designations  are  Forendihaz — Table,  or 
Chamber,  of  Magnates — and  Kepviselohdz,  or  Chamber  of  Deputies. 
The  upper  house  is  essentially  a  perpetuation  of  the  ancient  Table  of 
Magnates  which,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  began  to  sit  separately  as 
an  aristocratic  body  made  up  of  the  great  dignitaries  of  the  kingdom, 
the  Catholic  episcopate  (also,  after  1792,  that  of  the  Orthodox  Greek 
Church),  the  " supreme  courts,"  and  the  adult  sons  of  titled  families. 
The  reforms  of  1848  left  the  Chamber  untouched,  though  its  composi- 
tion was  modified  slightly  in  i885.3  At  the  session  of  1910-1911  it  con- 
tained 1 6  archdukes  of  the  royal  family  (eighteen  years  of  age  or  over) ; 
15  state  dignitaries;  2  presidents  of  the  High  Courts  of  Appeal;  42 
archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Greek  Orthodox 
churches;  13  representatives  of  the  Lutheran,  Calvinist,  and  Unitarian 
faiths;  236  members  of  the  hereditary  aristocracy  (i.  e.,  those  of  the 
whole  number  of  the  nobility  who  pay  a  land  tax  to  the  amount  of  at 
least  6,000  crowns  annually);  3  members  elected  by  the  provincial 
diet  of  Croatia;  and  60  life  peers,  appointed  by  the  crown  or  chosen  by 
the  Chamber  of  Magnates  itself — a  total  of  387«4  The  membership  is 

1  Law  III.  of  1848,  §  13.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  94. 

2  Law  III.  of  1848,  §37.    Ibid.,  L,  97. 

3  Law  VII.  of  1885  altering  the  Organization  of  the  Table  of  Magnates.    Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  100-105. 

4  The  number  is,  of  course,  variable.    The  old  Table  of  Magnates  was  a  very 
large  body,  consisting  of  more  than  800  members. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  493 

therefore  exceedingly  complex,  resting  on  the  various  principles  of 
hereditary  right,  ex-officio  qualification,  royal  nomination,  and  elec- 
tion. In  practice  the  upper  house  is  distinctly  subordinate  to  the 
lower,  to  which  alone  the  ministers  are  responsible.  Any  member 
may  acquire,  by  due  process  of  election,  a  seat  in  the  lower  chamber, 
and  the  privilege  is  one  of  which  the  more  ambitious  peers  are  not 
reluctant  to  avail  themselves.  Upon  election  to  the  lower  house  a 
peer's  right  to  sit  hi  the  upper  chamber  is,  of  course,  suspended;  but 
when  the  term  of  service  in  the  popular  branch  has  expired,  the  prior 
right  is  revived  automatically. 

646.  The  Chamber  of  Deputies:  the  Franchise. —  By  law  of  1848, 
amended  in  1874,  it  is  stipulated  that  the  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
historically  descended  from  the  ancient  Table  of  Nuncios,  shall  con- 
sist of  453  members,  "who  shall  enjoy  equal  voting  power,  and  who 
shall  be  elected  in  accordance  with  an  apportionment  made  on  the 
basis  of  population,  territory,  and  economic  conditions."  1  Of  the 
total  number  of  members,  413  are  representatives  of  Hungary  proper 
and  40  are  delegates  of  the  subordinate  kingdom  of  Croatia,  Slavonia, 
and  Dalmatia.  This  kingdom  possesses  its  own  organs  of  government, 
including  a  unicameral  diet  which  exercises  independent  legislative 
power  in  all  internal  affairs.  Its  forty  deputies  take  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings at  Budapest  only  when  subjects  are  under  consideration  which 
are  of  common  concern  to  all  of  the  countries  of  St.  Stephen's  crown, 
such  as  questions  pertaining  to  finance,  war,  communications,  and 
relations  with  Austria.2 

The  election  of  deputies  is  governed  by  an  elaborate  statute  of 
November  10,  1874,  by  which  were  perpetuated  the  fundamentals  of 
the  electoral  law  of  1848.  In  respect  to  procedure,  the  system  was 
further  amended  by  a  measure  of  1899.  Qualifications  for  the  exercise 
of  the  suffrage  are  based  on  age,  property,  taxation,  profession,  official 
position,  and  ancestral  privileges.  Nominally  liberal,  they  are,  in 
actual  operation,  notoriously  illiberal.  The  prescribed  age  for  an 
elector  is  twenty  years,  indeed,  as  compared  with  twenty-four  in 
Austria;  but  the  qualifications  based  upon  property-holding  are  so 
exacting  that  they  more  than  off-set  the  liberality  therein  involved. 
These  qualifications — too  complicated  to  be  enumerated  here — vary 
according  as  they  arise  from  capital,  industry,  occupation,  or  property- 
holding.  With  slight  restrictions,  the  right  to  vote  is  possessed  without 
regard  to  property  or  income,  by  members  of  the  Hungarian  Academy 

1  Law  V.  of  1848  concerning  the  Election  of  Representatives,  §  5.    Dodd,  Modern 
Constitutions,  I.,  105. 

2  On  the  status  of  the  Croatian  kingdom  see  p.  507. 


494  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Sciences,  professors,  notaries  public,  engineers,  surgeons,  druggists, 
graduates  of  agricultural  schools,  foresters,  clergymen,  chaplains,  and 
teachers.  On  the  other  hand,  state  officials,  soldiers  in  active  service, 
customs  employees,  and  the  police  have  no  vote;  servants,  apprenticed 
workingmen,  and  agricultural  laborers  are  carefully  excluded;  and 
there  are  the  usual  disqualifications  for  crime,  bankruptcy,  guardian- 
ship, and  deprivation  by  judicial  process.  In  an  aggregate  population 
of  approximately  20,000,000  to-day  there  are  not  more  than  1,100,000 
electors. 

646.  The  Magyar  Domination. — The  explanation  of  this  state  of 
affairs  is  to  be  sought  in  the  ethnographical  composition  of  Hungary's 
population.  Like  Austria,  Hungary  contains  a  melange  of  races  and 
nationalities.  The  original  Hungarians  are  the  Magyars,  and  by  the 
Magyar  element  attempt  has  been  made  always  to  preserve  as  against 
the  affiliated  German  and  Slavic  peoples  an  absolute  superiority  of 
social,  economic,  and  political  power.  The  Magyars  occupy  almost 
exclusively  the  more  desirable  portion  of  the  country,  i.  e.,  the  great 
central  plain  intersected  by  the  Danube  and  the  Theiss,  where  they 
preponderate  decidedly  in  as  many  as  nineteen  counties.  Clustered 
around  them,  and  in  more  or  less  immediate  touch  with  kindred  peo- 
ples beyond  the  borders,  are  the  Germans  and  the  Slavs — the  Slovaks 
in  the  mountains  of  the  north,  the  Ruthenes  on  the  slopes  of  the 
Carpathians,  the  Serbs  on  the  southeast,  and  the  Croats  on  the  south- 
west. When  the  census  of  1900  was  taken  the  total  population  of 
Hungary  (including  Croatia-Slavonia)  was  19,254,559.  Of  this 
number  8,742,301  were  Magyars;  8,029,316  were  Slavs;  2,135,181  were 
Germans;  and  397,761  were  of  various  minor  racial  groups.  To  put  it 
differently,  the  Magyars  numbered  8,742,301;  the  non-Magyars, 
10,512,258.  The  fundamental  fault  of  the  Hungarian  electorate  is 
that  it  has  been  shaped,  and  is  deliberately  maintained,  in  the  interest 
of  a  race  which  comprises  numerically  but  45.4  per  cent  of  the  coun- 
try's population.1  So  skillfully,  indeed,  have  electoral  qualifications 
and  electoral  proceedings  been  devised  in  the  Magyar  interest  that  the 
non-Magyar  majority  has  but  meager  representation,  and  still  less  in- 
fluence, at  Budapest.2  Even  in  Hungary  proper  the  electorate  in  1906 
comprised  but  24.4  per  cent  of  the  male  population  over  twenty  years 
of  age;  and,  despite  the  disqualifications  that  have  been  mentioned  one- 
fourth  of  the  men  who  vote  are  officials  or  employees  of  the  state. 

1  It  is  but  fair  to  say  that  in  Hungary  proper  the  Magyar  percentage  in  1000 
was  51.4. 

1  Of  the  413  representatives  of  Hungary  at  Budapest  in  1909,  but  26  were  non- 
Magyars,  and  after  the  elections  of  June,  1910,  but  7. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  495 

647.  The  Demand  for  Electoral  Reform:  the  Franchise  Reform  Bill 
of  1908. — In  recent  years,  especially  since  the  Austrian  electoral 
reform  of  1906-1907,  there  has  been  in  Hungary  an  increasingly  in- 
sistent demand  that  the  Magyar  parliamentary  hegemony  be  over- 
thrown, or  at  least  that  there  be  assured  to  the  non-Magyar  peoples 
something  like  a  proportionate  share  of  political  influence.  As  early 
as  1905  the  recurrence  of  legislative  deadlocks  at  Budapest  influenced 
Francis  Joseph  to  ally  himself  with  the  democratic  elements  of  the 
kingdom  and  to  declare  for  manhood  suffrage;  and  in  the  legislative 
programme  of  the  Fejervary  government,  made  public  October  28, 
1905,  the  place  of  principal  importance  was  assigned  to  this  reform. 
Fearing  the  swamping  of  the  popular  chamber  by  the  Slavs  and  Ger- 
mans, the  Magyars  steadily  opposed  all  change,  and  for  the  time  being 
the  mere  threat  on  the  part  of  the  Government  was  sufficient  to  restore 
tolerable,  if  not  normal,  parliamentary  conditions.  The  Wekerle 
coalition  cabinet  of  1906  announced  electoral  reform  as  one  of  its 
projected  tasks,  but  as  time  elapsed  it  became  apparent  that  no 
positive  action  was  likely  to  be  taken.  During  1907  and  1908  riotous 
demonstrations  on  the  part  of  the  disappointed  populace  were  fre- 
quent, and  at  last,  November  n,  1908,  Count  Andrassy,  Minister  of 
the  Interior,  introduced  in  the  Chamber  the  long-awaited  Franchise 
Reform  Bill. 

The  measure  fell  far  short  of  public  expectation.  It  was  drawn, 
as  Count  Andrassy  himself  admitted,  in  such  a  manner  as  not  "to 
compromise  the  Magyar  character  of  the  Hungarian  state."  After  a 
fashion,  it  conceded  manhood  suffrage.  But,  to  the  end  that  the 
Magyar  hegemony  might  be  preserved,  it  imposed  upon  the  exercise 
of  the  franchise  such  a  number  of  restrictions  and  assigned  to  plural 
voting  such  an  aggregate  of  weight  that  its  concessions  were  regarded 
by  those  who  were  expected  to  be  benefited  by  it  as  practically  value- 
less. The  essentials  of  the  measure  were  :  (i)  citizens  unable  to  read 
and  write  Hungarian  should  be  excluded  from  voting  directly,  though 
they  might  choose  one  elector  for  every  ten  of  their  number,  and  each 
elector  so  chosen  should  be  entitled  to  one  vote;  (2)  every  male  citizen 
able  to  read  and  write  Hungarian  should  be  invested,  upon  completing 
his  twenty-fourth  year  and  fulfilling  a  residence  requirement  of  twelve 
months,  with  one  vote;  (3)  electors  who  had  passed  four  standards 
of  a  secondary  school,1  or  who  paid  yearly  a  direct  tax  amounting  to 
at  least  twenty  crowns  ($4.16),  or  who  fulfilled  various  other  condi- 
tions, should  be  entitled  to  two  votes;  and  (4)  electors  who  had  com- 
pleted the  course  of  secondary  instruction,  or  who  paid  a  direct  tax  of 
1  Equivalent  to  the  completion  of  one-half  of  the  course  of  secondary  instruction. 


496  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

100  crowns  (approximately  $21),  should  be  possessed  of  three  votes. 
As  before,  voting  was  to  be  oral  and  public.  In  the  preamble  of  the 
measure  the  cynical  observation  was  offered  that  "the  secret  ballot 
protects  electors  in  dependent  positions  only  in  so  far  as  they  break 
their  promises  under  the  veil  of  secrecy."  It  was  announced  that  the 
passage  of  the  bill  would  be  followed  by  the  presentation  of  a  scheme 
for  the  redistribution  of  seats. 

548.  Rejection  of  the  Bill. — According  to  calculations  of  the  Neue 
Freie  Presse,  the  effect  of  the  measure  would  have  been  to  increase 
the  aggregate  body  of  electors  from  1,100,000  to  2,600,000,  and  the 
number  of  votes  to  something  like  4,000,000.  The  number  of  persons 
entitled  to  three  votes  was  estimated  at  200,000;  to  two  votes,  at 
860,000;  to  one  vote,  at  1,530,000;  to  no  vote,  at  1,270,000.  An  ag- 
gregate of  1,060,000  persons  in  the  first  two  classes  would  cast  2,320,000 
votes;  an  aggregate  of  2,800,000  in  the  last  two  would  cast  1,530,000 
votes.  The  number  of  persons  participating  in  parliamentary  elec- 
tions would  be  more  than  doubled,  but  political  power  would  remain 
where  it  was  already  lodged.  The  measure  would  have  operated,  in- 
deed, to  strengthen  the  Magyar  position,  and  while  the  Germans  would 
have  profited  somewhat  by  it,  the  Slavs  would  have  lost  largely  such 
power  as  they  at  present  possess.  Based  as  the  scheme  was  upon  a 
curious  elaboration  of  the  educational  qualification,  it  was  recognized 
instantly,  both  in  the  kingdom  and  outside,  as  an  instrument  of  de- 
liberate Magyar  domination.  Among  the  Slavic  populations  the 
prevalence  of  illiteracy  is  such  that  the  number  of  persons  who  could 
attain  the  possession  of  even  one  direct  vote  would  be  insignificant. 
By  the  Socialists,  and  by  the  radical  and  Slavic  elements  generally, 
the  scheme  was  denounced  as  a  sheer  caricature  of  the  universal, 
equal,  and  direct  suffrage  for  which  demand  had  been  made. 

Upon  the  introduction  of  the  bill  parliamentary  discord  broke  out 
afresh,  and  through  1909  there  was  a  deadlock  which  effectually  pre- 
vented the  enactment  of  even  the  necessary  measures  of  finance.  In 
January,  1910,  the  sovereign  at  last  succeeded  in  securing  a  new 
ministry,  presided  over  by  Count  Hedervary,  and  in  the  programme 
of  this  Government  the  introduction  of  manhood  suffrage  was  ac- 
corded a  place  of  principal  importance.  June  26,  1910,  the  Speech 
from  the  Throne,  at  the  opening  of  the  newly  elected  parliament, 
announced  that  a  franchise  bill  would  be  submitted  "on  the  basis  of 
universal  suffrage  and  in  complete  maintenance  of  the  unitary  national 
character  of  the  Hungarian  state."  Various  circumstances  co-operated, 
however,  to  impose  delay  and,  despite  the  sovereign's  reiterated  in- 
terest in  the  reform,  no  action  as  yet  has  been  taken.  The  Hungarian 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  497 

franchise  remains  the  most  illiberal  and  the  most  antiquated  in  Europe. 
The  racial  situation  seems  utterly  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a 
reform  that  will  be  in  all  respects  satisfactory;  indeed,  it  seems  almost 
to  preclude  the  possibility  of  reform  at  all.  Yet,  that  the  pressure 
will  be  continued  until  eventually  there  shall  be  an  overhauling  of  the 
present  inadequate  system  can  hardly  be  doubted.1 

649.  Electoral  Procedure. — Elections  are  conducted  in  each  town 
or  comitat  (county)  by  a  central  electoral  committee  of  at  least  twelve 
members,  chosen  by  the  municipal  council  of  the  town  or  by  the 
general  council  of  the  comitat.  The  list  of  voters  in  each  district  is 
drawn  up  by  a  sub-committee  of  this  body.  When  an  election  is  to 
be  held,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  fixes,  thirty  days  in  advance^  a 
period  of  ten  days  during  which  the  polling  must  be  completed.  As  in 
Great  Britain,  the  elections  do  not  take  place  simultaneously,  and 
a  candidate  defeated  in  one  constituency  may  stand,  and  possibly 
be  successful,  in  another.  All  polling  within  a  particular  town  or 
comitat,  however,  is  concluded  within  one  day.  Candidates  may 
be  nominated  by  any  ten  electors  of  the  district,  and  candidacies 
may  be  declared  until  within  thirty  minutes  of  the  hour  (eight  o'clock 

A.  M.)  for  the  polling  to  begin. 

Voting  is  everywhere  public  and  oral.  Each  elector,  after  giving 
his  name  and  establishing  his  identity,  simply  proclaims  in  a  loud 
voice  the  name  of  the  candidate  for  whom  he  desires  to  have  his  vote 
recorded.  If  no  candidate  obtains  an  absolute  majority,  the  central 
committee  fixes  a  date  (at  least  fourteen  days  distant)  for  a  second 
polling,  on  which  occasion  the  contest  lies  between  the  two  candidates 
who  at  the  first  balloting  polled  the  largest  number  of  votes.  Prior 
to  a  law  of  1899  defining  jurisdiction  in  electoral  matters,  Hungarian 
elections  were  tempestuous,  and  not  infrequently  scandalous.  Begin- 
ning with  the  elections  of  1901,  however,  electoral  manners  have 
shown  considerable  improvement;  though  ideal  conditions  can  hardly 
be  realized  until  oral  voting  shall  have  been  replaced  by  the  secret 

1  On  the  question  of  the  Hungarian  suffrage  see  S.  Aberdam,  La  crise  hongroise, 
in  Revue  Politique  ei  Parlementaire,  Oct.  10,  1009,  and  Les  r6centes  crises  politiques 
en  Hongrie,  in  Revue  des  Sciences  Politiques,  May- June  and  July-Aug.,  1912; 
G.  Louis- Jaray,  Le  suffrage  universel  en  Hongrie,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et 
Coloniales,  February  16,  1909;  R.  Henry,  La  crise  hongroise,  ibid.,  June  i,  1910; 
J.  Mailath,  Les  elections  g6n6rales  hongroises,  ibid.,  Aug.  16,  1910,  and  The 
Hungarian  Elections,  in  Contemporary  Review,  Oct.,  1910;  F.  de  Gerando,  Le  rad- 
icalisme  hongroise,  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  July,  1911;  A.  Duboscq,  La 
reforme  electorate  en  Hongrie,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  July  i,  1912; 
S.  Huszadik,  La  Hongrie  contemporaine  et  le  suffrage  universel  (Paris,  1909);  and 

B.  Auerbach,  Races  et  nationality  en  Autriche-Hongrie  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1910). 


498  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ballot.1  Any  elector  who  has  attained  the  age  of  twenty-four,  is  a 
registered  voter,  and  can  speak  Magyar  (the  official  language  of 
Hungarian  parliamentary  proceedings)  is  eligible  as  a  candidate. 
Deputies  receive  a  stipend  of  4,800  crowns  a  year,  with  an  allowance 
of  i,  600  crowns  for  house  rent. 

650.  Parliamentary  Organization  and  Procedure. — The  national 
parliament  assembles  in  regular  session  once  a  year  at  Budapest. 
Following  a  general  election,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  meets,  under 
the  presidency  of  its  oldest  member,  after  a  lapse  of  time  (not  exceed- 
ing thirty  days)  fixed  by  the  royal  letters  of  convocation.  The  Cham- 
ber of  Magnates  being  convoked  by  the  crown  at  the  same  date,  all 
members  repair  to  the  royal  palace  to  hear  the  Speech  from  the  Throne, 
which  is  delivered  by  the  king  in  person  or  by  an  especially  appointed 
royal  commissioner.2  The  lower  chamber  then  passes  upon  the  validity 
of  the  election  of  its  members,  though  by  law  of  1899  the  actual  exer- 
cise of  this  jurisdiction  is  committed  in  large  part  to  the  Royal  High 
Court.3  The  president  and  vice-president  of  the  Chamber  of  Magnates 
are  appointed  by  the  king  from  the  members  of  that  house;  the  secre- 
taries are  elected  by  the  house  from  its  own  members,  by  secret  ballot. 
The  lower  house  elects,  from  its  members,  all  of  its  officials — a  presi- 
dent, two  vice-presidents,  and  a  number  of  secretaries.  The  presidents 
of  the  two  houses  are  chosen  for  the  entire  period  of  the  parliament; 
all  other  officials  are  chosen  annually  at  the  beginning  of  a  session. 

Each  house  is  authorized,  at  its  first  annual  session  after  an  election, 
to  adopt  an  order  of  business  and  to  make  the  necessary  regulations 
for  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  propriety  in  its  deliberations.  The 
president,  with  the  aid  of  sergeants-at-arms,  is  charged  with  the  strict 
enforcement  of  all  such  rules.  Sittings  of  the  two  houses  are  required 
to  be  public,  but  spectators  who  disturb  the  proceedings  may  be  ex- 
cluded. The  maximum  life  of  a  parliament  was  raised,  in  1886,  from 
three  years  to  five.  It  is  within  the  power  of  the  king,  however,  not 
only  to  extend  or  to  adjourn  the  annual  session,  but  to  dissolve  the 
lower  chamber  before  the  expiration  of  the  five-year  period.  In  the 
event  of  a  dissolution,  orders  are  required  to  be  given  for  a  national 
election,  and  these  orders  must  be  so  timed  that  the  new  parliament 
may  be  assembled  within,  at  the  most,  three  months  after  the  dissolu- 
tion. And  there  is  the  further  requirement  that,  in  the  event  of  a  dis- 

1  Seatus  Viator,  Corruption  and  Reform  in  Hungary:  a  Study  of  Electoral  Prac- 
tice (London,  1911). 

2  King  Francis  Joseph  I.  has  been  absent  upon  this  important  occasion  but  once 
since  1867.    Apponyi,  in  Alden,  Hungary  of  To-day,  166. 

'Ibid.,  166-175. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  499 

solution  before  the  budget  shall  have  been  voted  for  the  ensuing  year, 
the  convocation  of  the  new  parliament  shall  be  provided  for  within 
such  a  period  as  will  permit  the  estimates  for  the  succeeding  year  to 
be  considered  before  the  close  of  the  current  year. 

651.  The  Powers  of  Parliament:  the  Parliamentary  System. — In  the 
Hungarian  constitutional  system  Parliament  is  in  a  very  real  sense 
supreme.  The  king  can  exercise  his  prerogatives  only  through  min- 
isters who  are  responsible  to  the  lower  chamber,  and  all  arrangements 
pertaining  to  the  welfare  of  the  state  fall  within  the  competence  of  the 
legislative  branch.  Within  Parliament  it  is  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
that  preponderates.  Aside  from  the  king  and  ministry,  it  alone  enjoys 
the  power  of  initiating  legislation;  and  the  opposition  with  which  the 
Chamber  of  Magnates  may  be  disposed  to  meet  its  measures  invariably 
melts  away  after  a  show  of  opinion  has  been  made.  By  a  simple 
majority  vote  in  the  lower  chamber  a  minister  may  be  impeached  for 
bribery,  negligence,  or  any  act  detrimental  to  the  independence  of  the 
country,  the  constitution,  individual  liberty,  or  property  rights.  Trial 
is  held  before  a  tribunal  composed  of  men  chosen  by  secret  ballot  by 
the  Chamber  of  Magnates  from  its  own  members.  For  the  purpose 
thirty-six  members  in  all  are  required  to  be  elected.  Of  the  number, 
twelve  may  be  rejected  by  the  impeachment  commission  of  the  lower 
house,  and  twelve  others  by  the  minister  or  ministers  under  impeach- 
ment. Those  remaining,  at  least  twelve  in  number,  try  the  case. 
Procedure  is  required  to  be  public  and  the  penalty  to  be  "fixed  in 
proportion  to  the  offense."  1 

The  statement  which  has  sometimes  been  made  that  the  parlia- 
mentary system  operates  to-day  in  the  kingdom  of  Hungary  in  a 
fuller  measure  than  in  any  other  continental  country  requires  qualifica- 
tion. Nominally,  it  is  true,  an  unfavorable  vote  in  the  Deputies  upon  a 
Government  measure  or  action  involves  the  retirement  of  a  minister, 
or  of  the  entire  cabinet,  unless  the  crown  is  willing  to  dissolve  the 
Chamber  and  appeal  to  the  country;  and  no  Government  project  of 
consequence  can  be  carried  through  without  parliamentary  approval. 
Practical  conditions  within  the  kingdom,  however,  have  never  been 
favorable  for  the  operation  of  parliamentarism  in  a  normal  manner. 
In  the  first  place,  the  parliament  itself  is  in  no  wise  representative  of 
the  nation  as  a  whole.  In  the  second  place,  the  proceedings  of  the 
body  are  not  infrequently  so  stormy  in  character  that  for  months  at  a 
time  the  essential  principles  of  parliamentarism  are  hopelessly  sub- 
verted. Finally,  and  most  fundamental  of  all,  at  no  period  in  the 

1  Law  III.  of  1848  concerning  the  Formation  of  a  Responsible  Hungarian  Minis- 
try, §§  33-34-  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  97. 


500  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

kingdom's  history  have  there  been  two  great  parties,  contending  on 
fairly  equal  terms  for  the  mastery  of  the  state,  each  in  a  position  to 
assume  direction  of  the  government  upon  the  defeat  or  momentary 
discomfiture  of  the  other.  From  1867  to  1875,  as  will  appear,  there 
was  but  one  party  (that  led  by  Deak)  which  accepted  the  Compromise, 
and  hence  could  be  intrusted  with  office;  and  from  1875  to  the  present 
day  there  has  been  but  one  great  party,  the  Liberal,  broken  at  times 
into  groups  and  beset  by  more  or  less  influential  conservative  elements, 
but  always  sufficiently  compact  and  powerful  to  be  able  to  retain 
control  of  the  government.  Under  these  conditions  it  has  worked  out 
in  practice  that  ministries  have  retired  repeatedly  by  reason  of  decline 
of  popularity,  internal  friction,  or  request  of  the  sovereign,  and  but 
rarely  in  consequence  of  an  adverse  vote  in  Parliament. 

IV.  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

662.  The  Question  of  the  Ausgleich. —  Throughout  half  a  century 
the  party  history  of  Hungary  has  centered  about  two  preponderating 
problems,  first,  the  maintenance  of  the  Compromise  with  Austria 
and,  second,  the  preservation  of  the  political  ascendancy  of  the  Mag- 
yars. Of  these  the  first  has  been  the  more  fundamental,  because  the 
ascendancy  of  the  Magyars  was,  and  is,  an  accomplished  fact  and 
upon  the  perpetuation  of  that  ascendancy  there  can  be,  among  the 
ruling  Magyars  themselves,  no  essential  division.  The  issue  upon 
which  those  elements  of  the  population  which  are  vested  with  political 
power  (and  which,  consequently,  compose  the  political  parties  in  the 
true  sense)  have  been  always  most  prone  to  divide,  is  that  of  the  per- 
petuation and  character  of  the  Ausgleich.  To  put  it  broadly,  there 
have  been  regularly  two  schools  of  opinion  in  respect  to  this  subject. 
There  have  been  the  men,  on  the  one  hand,  who  accept  the  arrange- 
ments of  1867  and  maintain  that  by  virtue  of  them  Hungary,  far  from 
having  surrendered  any  of  her  essential  interests,  has  acquired  an 
influence  and  prestige  which  otherwise  she  could  not  have  enjoyed. 
And  there  have  been  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  see  in  the  Aus- 
gleich nothing  save  an  abandonment  of  national  dignity  and  who, 
therefore,  would  have  the  arrangement  thoroughly  remodelled,  or 
even  abrogated  outright.  Under  various  names,  and  working  by 
different  methods,  the  parties  of  the  kingdom  have  assumed  almost 
invariably  one  or  the  other  of  these  attitudes. 

653.  Formation  of  the  Liberal  Party. — As  has  been  pointed  out,  the 
Compromise  was  carried  through  the  Hungarian  parliament  in  1867 
by  the  party  of  Deak.  Opposed  to  it  was  the  Left,  who  favored  the 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  501 

maintenance  of  no  union  whatsoever  with  Austria  save  through  the 
crown.  The  first  ministry  formed  under  the  new  arrangement,  pre- 
sided over  by  Count  Andrassy,  was  composed  of  members  of  the  Deak 
party,  and  at  the  national  elections  of  1869  this  party  obtained  a 
substantial,  though  hard-won,  majority.  In  1871  Andrassy  resigned 
to  become  the  successor  of  Count  Beust  in  the  joint  ministry  of  for- 
eign affairs  at  Vienna,  and  two  years  later  Deak  himself,  now  an  aged 
man,  withdrew  from  active  political  life.  There  followed  in  Hungary 
an  epoch  of  political  unsettlement  during  the  course  of  which  min- 
istries changed  frequently,  finances  fell  into  disorder,  and  legislation 
was  scant  and  haphazard.  The  Deak  party  disintegrated  and,  but 
for  the  fact  that  the  Left  gradually  abandoned  its  determination  to 
overthrow  the  Ausgleich,  the  outcome  might  well  have  been  a  con- 
stitutional crisis,  if  not  war.  As  it  was,  when,  in  February,  1875,  the 
leader  of  the  Left,  Kalman  Tisza,  publicly  acknowledged  his  party's 
conversion  to  the  Austrian  affiliation,  the  fragments  of  the  Deak 
party  amalgamated  readily  with  the  Left  to  form  the  great  Liberal 
party  by  which  the  destinies  of  Hungary  have  been  guided  almost 
uninterruptedly  to  the  present  day.  Except  for  the  followers  of 
Kossuth,  essentially  irreconcilable,  the  Magyars  were  now  united  in 
the  support  of  some  sort  of  union  with  Austria,  and  most  of  them  were 
content  for  the  present  to  abide  by  the  arrangement  of  1867.  Before 
the  close  of  1875  Tisza  was  established  at  the  head  of  a  Liberal  cabinet, 
and  from  that  time  until  his  fall,  in  March,  1890,  he  was  continuously 
the  real  ruler  of  Hungary. 

554.  The  Liberal  Ascendancy:  Tisza,  Szapary,  Wekerle,  and  Banff y. 
—The  primary  policy  of  Tisza  was  to  convert  the  polyglot  Hungarian 
kingdom  into  a  centralized  and  homogeneous  Magyar  state,  and  to 
this  end  he  did  not  hesitate  to  employ  the  most  relentless  and  some- 
times unscrupulous  means.  Nominally  a  Liberal,  he  trampled  the 
principles  of  liberalism  systematically  under  foot.  To  the  disordered 
country,  however,  his  strong  rule  brought  no  small  measure  of  benefit, 
especially  in  respect  to  economic  conditions.  He  supported  faithfully 
the  Compromise  of  1867;  but  when,  in  1877,  the  commercial  treaty 
between  the  two  halves  of  the  monarchy  expired  he  contrived  to  pro- 
cure increased  advantages  for  Hungary,  and  among  them  the  con- 
version of  the  Austrian  National  Bank  into  a  joint  institution  of  the 
two  states.  Opposition  to  the  Tisza  regime  arose  from  two  sources 
principally,  i.  e.,  the  Kossuth  party  of  Independence,  which  clung 
still  to  the  principles  of  1848,  and  the  National  party,  led  by  the 
brilliant  orator  Count  Albert  Apponyi,  distinguishable  from  the 
Independence  group,  on  the  one  hand,  by  its  provisional  acquiescence 


502  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

in  the  Ausgleich  and  from  the  Liberals,  on  the  other,  by  its  still  more 
enthusiastic  advocacy  of  Magyarizatien.  At  Vienna,  Tisza  was  re- 
garded as  indispensable;  but  growing  discontent  in  Hungary  under- 
mined his  position  and  March  13,  1890,  he  retired  from  office. 

With  the  fall  of  Tisza  there  was  inaugurated  a  period  of  short  min- 
istries whose  history  it  would  be  unprofitable  to  attempt  to  recount  in 
detail.  The  Liberal  party  continued  in  control,  for  there  had  ap- 
peared no  rival  group  of  sufficient  strength  to  drive  it  from  power. 
But  the  rise  of  a  series  of  issues  involving  the  relations  of  church  and 
state  injected  into  the  political  situation  a  number  of  new  elements 
and  occasioned  frequent  readjustments  within  the  ministerial  group. 
The  ministry  of  Count  Szapary,  which  succeeded  that  of  Tisza  was 
followed,  November  21,  1892,  by  that  of  Dr.  Sandor  Wekerle,  and  it, 
in  turn,  after  a  number  of  the  religious  bills  had  been  passed,  was 
succeeded,  January  n,  1895,  by  a  cabinet  presided  over  by  Baron 
Banffy.  At  the  elections  of  1896  the  Liberals  were  overwhelmingly 
triumphant,  acquiring  in  the  lower  chamber  a  majority  of  two  to  one. 
The  Nationalist  contingent  was  reduced  from  57  to  35. 

556.  The  Era  of  Parliamentary  Obstructionism. — The  period  cov- 
ered by  the  Banffy  ministry  (January,  1895,  to  February,  1899)  was 
one  of  the  stormiest  in  Hungarian  parliamentary  history.  At  the 
close  of  1897  the  decennial  economic  agreement  with  Austria  came 
automatically  to  an  end,  and  despite  its  best  efforts  the  Government 
was  unable  to  procure  from  Parliament  an  approval  of  a  renewal  of  the 
arrangement.  Through  two  years  successively  the  existing  agreement 
was  extended  provisionally  for  twelve  months  at  a  time.  It  was  only 
during  the  ministry  of  Szell,  who  took  office  in  February,  1899,  that  a 
renewal  was  voted,  covering  the  period  to  1907.  In  Hungary  there  is 
no  constitutional  provision  equivalent  to  Section  14  of  the  constitution 
of  Austria,  but  during  1897-1899  the  utter  breakdown  of  legislation  at 
Budapest  drove  Premier  Banffy  to  a  policy  of  government  by  decree 
very  similar  to  that  which  was  at  the  same  time  being  employed  at 
Vienna.  The  Government  had  all  of  the  while  a  substantial  majority, 
but  the  obstructionist  tactics  of  the  Independence  group,  the  Apponyi 
Nationalists,  and  the  Clericals  were  of  such  a  nature  that  normal 
legislation  was  impossible.  Under  the  regime  of  Szell  (February, 
1899,  to  May,  1903),  who  was  a  survivor  of  the  old  Deak  group,  con- 
stitutionalism was  rehabilitated  and  the  Liberals  who  had  been  al- 
ienated by  Banffy's  autocratic  measures  were  won  back  to  the  Govern- 
ment's support.  Nationalist  obstruction  likewise  diminished,  for  the 
primary  object  of  Apponyi's  followers  had  been  to  drive  Banffy  from 
power. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  503 

The  brief  ministry  of  Count  Khuen-Hedervary  (May  i  to  Sep- 
tember 29,  1903)  was  followed  by  a  ministry  presided  over  by  Count 
Istvan  [Stephen]  Tisza,  son  of  Kalman  Tisza,  premier  from  1875  to 
1890.  The  principal  task  of  the  younger  Tisza's  ministry  was  to  effect 
an  arrangement  whereby  the  Hungarian  army,  while  remaining  essen- 
tially Hungarian,  should  not  be  unpaired  in  efficiency  as  a  part  of  the 
dual  monarchy's  military  establishment.  During  parliamentary  con- 
sideration of  this  subject  obstruction  to  the  Government's  proposals 
acquired  again  such  force  that,  under  the  accustomed  rules  of  proce- 
dure, no  action  could  be  taken.  November  18,  1904,  the  opposition 
shouted  down  a  Modification  of  the  Standing  Orders  bill,  designed  to 
frustrate  obstruction,  and  would  permit  no  debate  upon  it;  whereupon, 
the  president  of  the  Chamber  declared  the  bill  carried  and  adjourned 
the  house  until  December  13,  and  subsequently  until  January  5,  1905. 
The  opposition  commanded  now  190  votes  in  a  total  of  451.  When 
the  date  for  the  reassembling  arrived  members  of  the  obstructionist 
groups  broke  into  the  parliament  house  and  by  demolishing  the  furni- 
ture rendered  a  session  for  the  time  impossible.  In  disgust  Tisza 
appealed  to  the  country,  only  to  be  signally  defeated.  The  Govern- 
ment carried  but  152  seats.  The  Kossuth  party  of  Independence  alone 
carried  163;  the  Liberal  dissenters  under  Andrassy  got  23;  the  Clerical 
People's  party,  23 ;  the  Banffy  group,  1 1 ;  and  the  non-Magyar  nation- 
alities, 8.  Tisza  sought  to  retire,  but  not  until  June  17,  1905,  would 
the  sovereign  accept  his  resignation. 

656.  The  Government's  Partial  Triumph. — Incensed  by  the  pro- 
longed, and  in  many  respects  indefensible,  character  of  the  parlia- 
mentary deadlock,  Francis  Joseph  resolved  to  establish  in  office  an 
essentially  extra-constitutional  ministry  which  should  somehow  con- 
trive to  override  the  opposition,  and  likewise  to  set  on  foot  a  movement 
looking  toward  the  revolutionizing  of  Hungarian  parliamentary  con- 
ditions by  the  introduction  of  manhood  suffrage.  Under  the  ministry 
of  Baron  Fejervary,  constituted  June  21,  1905,  there  was  inaugurated 
a  period  of  frankly  arbitrary  government.  Parliament  was  prorogued 
repeatedly,  and  by  censorship  of  the  press,  the  dragooning  of  towns, 
and  the  dismissal  of  officers  the  Magyar  population  was  made  to  feel 
unmistakably  the  weight  of  the  royal  displeasure.  For  awhile  there 
was  dogged  resistance,  but  in  time  the  threat  of  electoral  reform  took 
the  heart  out  of  the  opposition.  Outwardly  a  show  of  resistance  was 
maintained,  but  after  the  early  months  of  1906  the  Government  may 
be  said  once  more  to  have  had  the  situation  well  in  hand.  Two  events 
of  the  year  mentioned  imparted  emphasis  to  the  profound  change 
of  political  conditions  which  the  period  of  conflict  had  produced.  The 


504  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

first  was  the  establishment,  under  the  premiership  of  the  Liberal 
leader  Dr.  Wekerle,  of  a  coalition  cabinet  embracing  a  veritable 
galaxy  of  Hungarian  statesmen,  including  Francis  Kossuth,  Count 
Andrassy,  and  Count  ApponyL  The  second  was  the  all  but  complete 
annihilation,  at  the  national  elections  which  ensued,  of  the  old  Liberal 
party,  and  the  substitution  for  it,  in  the  role  of  political  preponderance, 
of  the  Kossuth  party  of  Independence.  The  number  of  seats  carried 
by  this  rapidly  developing  party  was  250,  or  more  than  one-half  of 
the  entire  number  in  the  Chamber. 

667.  The  Parliamentary  Conflict  Renewed. —  The  Wekerle  cabinet 
entered  office  pledged  to  electoral  reform,  although  in  the  subject 
it  in  reality  cherished  but  meager  interest.  In  1908,  as  has  been  re- 
lated, it  was  impelled  by  popular  pressure  to  submit  a  new  electoral 
scheme; 1  but  that  scheme  was  conceived  wholly  in  the  Magyar  interest 
and  did  not  touch  the  real  problem.  It  very  properly  failed  of  adop- 
tion. Meanwhile  the  ministry  fell  into  hopeless  disagreement  upon 
the  question  of  whether  Hungary  should  consent  to  the  renewal  of 
the  charter  of  the  Austro-Hungarian  Bank  (to  expire  December  31, 
1910)  or  should  hold  out  for  the  establishment  of  a  separate  Hungarian 
Bank,  and,  April  27,  1909,  Premier  Wekerle  tendered  his  resignation. 
At  the  solicitation  of  the  sovereign  he  consented  to  retain  office  until 
a  new  ministry  could  be  constituted,  which,  in  point  of  fact,  proved 
to  be  until  January  17,  1910.  Added  to  the  problem  of  the  Bank  was 
an  even  more  vexatious  one,  that,  namely,  of  the  Magyarization  of 
the  Hungarian  regiments.  The  extremer  demands  in  the  matter  of 
Magyarization  emanated,  of  course,  from  the  Independence  party, 
though  upon  the  issue  the  party  itself  became  divided  into  two  fac- 
tions, the  extremists  being  led  by  Justh  and  the  more  moderate  ele- 
ment by  Kossuth.  The  coalition  was  disrupted  utterly;  the  Wekerle 
ministry  dragged  on  simply  because  through  many  months  no  other 
could  be  brought  together  to  take  its  place.  The  year  1909  passed 
without  even  the  vote  of  a  budget. 

January  17, 1910,  Count  Hedervary  succeeded  in  forming  a  cabinet, 
and  there  ensued  a  lull  in  the  political  struggle.  At  the  elections  of 
June,  the  Government — representing  virtually  the  revived  Liberal 
party — carried  246  seats,  while  the  two  wings  of  the  Independence 
party  secured  together  only  85.  The  Clericals  were  reduced  to  13  and 
the  non-Magyars  to  7.  Under  the  leadership  of  Istvan  Tisza  there 
was  organized,  at  the  beginning  of  1910,  a  so-called  "National  Party 
of  Work,"  which  by  the  emphasis  which  it  laid  upon  its  purpose  of 
practical  achievement  commended  itself  to  large  elements  of  the 

1  See  p.  495. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  505 

nation.  By  the  Hedervary  government  it  was  announced  that  the 
franchise  would  be  reformed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  maintain,  without 
the  employment  of  the  plural  vote,  the  historical  character  of  the 
Magyar  state;  but  the  bitterness  of  Magyar  feeling  upon  the  subject 
continued  to  preclude  all  possibility  of  action.  The  embarrassments 
continually  suffered  by  the  Hedervary  ministry  reached  their  culmina- 
tion in  the  winter  of  1911-1912,  at  which  time  the  relations  between 
Austria  and  Hungary  became  so  strained  that  Emperor  Francis  Joseph 
threatened  to  abdicate  unless  pending  difficulties  should  be  adjusted. 
The  question  of  most  immediate  seriousness  pertained  to  the  adoption 
of  new  regulations  for  the  military  establishment,  but  the  electoral 
issue  loomed  large  in  the  background.  The  retirement  of  the  Heder- 
vary cabinet,  March  7, 1912,  and  the  accession  of  a  ministry  presided 
over  by  Dr.  de  Lukacs  affected  the  situation  but  slightly.  The  new 
premier  made  it  clear  that  he  would  labor  for  electoral  reform,  and 
issue  was  joined  with  him  squarely  upon  this  part  of  his  programme  by 
the  aristocracy,  the  gentry,  the  Chamber  of  Magnates,  and  all  the 
adherents  of  Andrassy,  Apponyi,  and  Kossuth,  with  the  deliberately 
conceived  purpose  of  frightening  the  Government,  and  especially  the 
Emperor-King,  into  an  abandonment  of  all  plans  to  tamper  with 
existing  electoral  arrangements.  During  the  earlier  months  of  the 
ministry  efforts  of  the  premier  to  effect  a  working  agreement  with 
the  forces  of  opposition  were  but  indifferently  successful.1 

V.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

568.  Law  and  Justice. — The  law  of  Hungary,  like  that  of  England, 
is  the  product  of  long-continued  growth.  It  consists  fundamentally 
of  the  common  law  of  the  mediaeval  period  (first  codified  by  the  jurist 
Verboczy  in  the  sixteenth  century),  amplified  and  modernized  in 
more  recent  times,  especially  since  the  reforms  of  1867,  so  that  what 
originally  was  little  more  than  a  body  of  feudal  customs  has  been 
transformed  into  a  comprehensive  national  code.  Hungarian  criminal 
law,  codified  in  1878,  is  recognized  to  be  the  equal  of  anything  of  the 
kind  that  the  world  possesses.  Since  1896  there  has  been  in  progress 
a  codification  of  the  civil  law,  and  the  task  is  announced  to  be  ap- 
proaching completion.  There  are  numerous  special  codes,  pertaining 
to  commerce,  bankruptcy,  and  industry,  whose  promulgation  from  time 
to  time  has  marked  epochs  in  the  economic  development  of  the  nation. 

The  lower  Hungarian  tribunals,  or  courts  of  first  instance,  comprise 

1  For  a  brief  account  of  Hungarian  party  politics  to  1896  see  Lowell,  Govern- 
ments and  Parties,  II.,  152-161.  For  references  to  current  periodicals  see  p.  497. 


$o6  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

458  county  courts,  with  single  judges,  and  76  district  courts,  with  two 
or  more  judges  each.  Both  exercise  jurisdiction  in  civil  and  criminal 
cases;  but  the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  courts  in  civil  cases  extends 
only  to  suits  involving  not  more  than  1,200  crowns,  while  in  criminal 
cases  these  tribunals  are  not  competent  to  impose  punishment  exceed- 
ing a  single  year's  imprisonment.  The  district  courts  serve  as  courts 
of  appeal  from  the  county  courts.  Of  superior  courts  there  are  four- 
teen— twelve  "royal  tables,"  or  courts  of  appeal,  a  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice  at  Agram,  and  a  Royal  Supreme  Court  at  Budapest.  The 
twelve  contain,  in  all,  200  judges;  the  Royal  Supreme  Court  contains 
92.  All  judges  are  appointed  by  the  king.  Once  appointed,  they  are 
independent  and  irremovable.  Only  Hungarian  citizens  may  be  ap- 
pointed, and  every  appointee  must  have  attained  the  age  of  twenty- 
six,  must  be  of  good  moral  character,  must  be  familiar  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  court  in  which  he  is  to  serve,  and  must  have  passed  the 
requisite  legal  examinations.  Salaries  vary  from  3,840  to  10,000 
crowns.  Supreme  administrative  control  of  the  judicial  system  is 
vested  in  the  Minister  of  Justice.  The  sphere  of  his  authority  is 
regulated  minutely  by  parliamentary  statute.  In  the  main,  he  super- 
vises the  judges,  attends  to  the  legal  aspects  of  international  relations, 
prepares  bills,  and  oversees  the  execution  of  sentences. 

559.  Local  Government:  the  County. — The  principal  unit  of  local 
government  in  Hungary  is  the  county.  The  original  Hungarian  county 
instituted  by  St.  Stephen  about  the  year  1000,  was  simply  a  district, 
closely  resembling  the  English  county  or  the  French  department,  at 
the  head  of  which  the  king  placed  an  officer  to  represent  the  crown  in 
military  and  administrative  affairs.  Local  self-government  had  its 
beginning  in  the  opposition  of  the  minor  nobility  to  this  centralizing 
agency,  and  in  periods  of  royal  weakness  the  nobles  usurped  a  certain 
amount  of  control,  first  in  justice,  later  in  legislation,  and  finally  in  the 
election  of  local  officials,  which  in  time  was  extended  legal  recognition. 
At  all  points  the  county  became  substantially  autonomous.  Indeed, 
by  1848  Hungary  was  really  a  confederation  of  fifty- two  counties, 
each  not  far  removed  from  an  aristocratic  republic,  rather  than 
a  centralized  state.  For  a  time  after  1867  there  was  a  tendency 
toward  a  revival  of  the  centralization  of  earlier  days.  In  1876 
laws  were  enacted  which  vested  the  administration  of  the  county  in 
a  committee  composed  in  part  of  members  elected  within  the  county, 
but  also  in  part  of  officials  designated  by  the  crown;  and  a  statute  of 
1891  went  still  further  in  the  direction  of  bureaucratic  centralization. 
More  recently,  however,  the  county  has  undergone  a  slight  measure 
of  democratization. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  AND  PARTIES  OF  HUNGARY  507 

Exclusive  of  Croatia-Slavonia,  there  are  in  Hungary  to-day  63  rural 
counties  and  36  urban  counties  or  towns  with  municipal  rights.  In 
Croatia-Slavonia  the  numbers  are  8  and  4  respectively.  The  urban 
counties  are  in  reality  municipalities  and  are  essentially  separate 
from  the  rural  counties  in  which  they  are  situated.  The  governmental 
system  of  the  county  comprises  a  council  of  twenty,  composed  half  of 
members  chosen  by  the  electors  for  six  years  and  half  of  persons  who 
pay  the  highest  taxes,  together  with  an  especially  appointed  com- 
mittee which  serves  as  the  local  executive.  At  the  head  of  the  assembly 
is  the  foispdn,  or  lord  lieutenant,  appointed  by  the  crown.  Legally, 
the  counties  may  withhold  taxes  and  refuse  to  furnish  troops,  but 
there  is  no  popular  representation  hi  the  true  sense  in  the  county 
governments.  The  franchise  is  confined  to  the  very  restricted  parlia- 
mentary electorate.  The  subject  races  and  the  working  classes  are 
unrepresented  and  the  real  possessors  of  power  are  the  Magyar  land- 
owners. 

660.  Croatia,  Slavonia,  and  Dalmatia. — To  the  kingdom  of  Hun- 
gary proper  are  attached  certain  partes  adnexce  which  enjoy  a  large 
measure  of  political  autonomy.  Dalmatia,  united  to  Hungary  at  the 
beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  belongs  de  jure  to  Hungary  and 
de  facto  to  Austria;  Croatia  and  Slavonia  belong  both  de  jure  and 
de  facto  to  Hungary.1  Croatia  and  Slavonia,  as  Hungarian  dominions, 
have  always  possessed  a  peculiar  status.  They  are  inalienable  por- 
tions of  the  kingdom,  and  in  all  that  pertains  to  war,  trade,  and 
finance  they  are  on  precisely  the  same  footing  as  any  other  part  of  the 
state.  In  other  matters,  however,  i.  e.,  in  religion,  education,  justice, 
and  home  affairs  generally,  they  enjoy  a  wide  range  of  independent 
control.  The  administration  of  common  affairs  is  vested  in  the  Hun- 
garian ministry,  which  must  always  contain  a  minister  with  the  special 
function  of  supervision  of  Croatian  interests.  In  the  parliament  at 
Budapest  Croatia-Slavonia  is  represented  by  40  members  (sent  from 
its  own  diet)  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  three  members  in  the 
Chamber  of  Magnates.  These  arrangements  exist  in  virtue  originally 
of  an  agreement  concluded  between  the  Magyars  and  the  Croats  in 
1868,  and  they  are  closely  analogous  to  the  relationships  established  by 
the  Compromise  of  the  previous  year  between  Hungary  and  Austria. 
The  compact  of  1868  was  renewed  upon  several  occasions  prior  to 
1  Until  1848  the  grand-principality  of  Transylvania  also  enjoyed  a  considerable 
measure  of  autonomy.  In  1848  it  was  united  with  Hungary.  In  1849  it  regained 
its  ancient  independence,  but  in  1867  it  was  again  joined  with  Hungary.  By  legis- 
lation of  1868  and  1876  it  was  fully  incorporated  in  the  kingdom,  75  seats  being 
awarded  it  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  at  Budapest  hi  lieu  of  its  provincial  diet, 
which  was  abolished. 


508  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

1898,  since  which  time  it  has  been  intermittently  under  process  of 
revision.  Among  the  Croats  there  has  long  been  insistent  demand  for 
its  fundamental  modification.  The  charge,  in  general,  is  that  as  at 
present  administered  the  arrangement  operates  all  but  exclusively 
to  the  benefit  of  the  Hungarians.1  The  Wekerle  coalition  ministry 
of  1906  promised  a  redress  of  grievances,  but  none  was  forthcoming, 
and  in  more  recent  years,  especially  1907-1908,  riots  and  other  anti- 
Magyar  demonstrations  have  been  not  uncommon  in  the  territories. 
The  local  Croatian-Slavonian  diet  is  a  unicameral  body  consisting 
of  90  deputies  elected  by  districts,  and  of  dignitaries  (ecclesiastics, 
prefects  of  counties,  princes,  counts,  and  barons)  to  the  number  of  not 
more  than  half  of  the  quota  of  elected  members.  The  executive  con- 
sists of  the  three  departments  of  Interior  and  Finance,  Culture  and 
Education,  and  Justice.  At  the  head  of  each  is  a  chief,  and  over  them 
all  presides  an  official  known  as  the  Banus.  The  Banus  is  appointed 
by  the  crown  on  the  nomination  of  the  premier.  He  is  ex-officio  a 
member  of  the  Chamber  of  Magnates,  and  it  is  his  function  to  super- 
vise all  matters  of  administration  in  the  provinces,  under  the  general 
direction  of  the  Croatian  minister,  who  constitutes  the  vital  tie  be- 
tween the  central  government  at  Budapest  and  the  dependent  terri- 
tories. Local  government  is  administered  in  eight  rural  and  four  urban 
counties.2 

1  Under  the  agreement  44  per  cent  of  the  Croatian-Slavonian  revenue  is  re- 
tained for  local  needs  and  the  remaining  56  per  cent  is  devoted  to  common  expendi- 
tures of  the  kingdom  upon  the  army,  public  works,  and  the  national  debt.    It  is 
alleged,  among  other  things,  that  this  apportionment  is  unjust,  and,  furthermore, 
that  the  Hungarian  authorities  systematically  divert  local  funds  to  national  uses. 

2  An  English  version  of  the  statute  of  1868  regulating  the  status  of  Croatia- 
Slavonia  is  printed  in  Drage,  Austria-Hungary,  767-783.    For  extended  discus- 
sions of  the  subject  see  Drage,  op.  cit.,  Chap,   n;  Geosztanyi,  in  P.  Alden 
(ed.),  Hungary  of  To-day,  Chap,  n;  G.  Horn,  Le  Compromis  de  1868  entre  la 
Croatie  et  la  Hongrie  (Paris,  1007);  G.  de  Montbel,  La  condition  politique  de 
la  Croatie-Slavonie  dans  la  monarchic  austro-hongroise  (Toulouse,   1909);  and 
R.  Gonnard,  Entre  Drave  et  Save;  e"tudes  economiques,  politiques,  et  sociales  sur 
la  Croatie-Slavonie  (Paris,  1911).    See  also  R.  Henry,  La  Hongrie,  la  Croatie,  et 
les  nationality's,  in  Questions  Diplomatique*  et  Coloniales,  Aug.  16,  1907;  J.  Mailath 
Hongrie  et  Croatie,  ibid.,  Nov.  i,  1907. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  THE  JOINT  GOVERNMENT 

561.  The  Ausgleich. — The  unique  political  relation  which  subsists 
to-day  between  the  Empire  of  Austria  and  the  kingdom  of  Hungary 
rests  upon  the  Ausgleich,  or  Compromise,  of  1867,  supplemented  at 
certain  points  by  agreements  of  more  recent  date.  The  fundamental 
terms  of  the  arrangement,  worked  out  by  the  Emperor  Francis  Joseph, 
Deak,  and  Baron  Beust,  were  incorporated  in  essentially  identical 
statutes  enacted  by  the  Hungarian  Parliament  and  the  Austrian 
Reichsrath  December  21  and  24  of  the  year  mentioned.  Between 
the  demand  of  Hungary,  on  the  one  hand,  for  independence  (save  only 
in  respect  to  the  crown),  and  that  of  Austria,  on  the  other,  for  the 
thoroughgoing  subordination  of  the  Hungarian  to  an  Imperial  min- 
istry, there  was  devised  a  compromise  whose  ruling  principle  is 
that  of  dualism  rather  than  that  of  either  absolute  unity  or  sub- 
ordination. Under  the  name  Austria-Hungary  there  was  established 
a  novel  type  of  state  consisting  of  an  empire  and  a  kingdom,  each 
of  which,  retaining  its  identity  unimpaired,  stands  in  law  upon  a 
plane  of  complete  equality  with  the  other.  Each  has  its  own  constitu- 
tion, its  own  parliament,  its  own  ministry,  its  own  administration,  its 
own  courts.  Yet  the  two  have  but  one  sovereign  and  one  flag,  and 
within  certain  large  and  important  fields  the  governmental  ma- 
chinery and  public  policy  of  the  two  are  maintained  in  common. 
The  laws  which  comprise  the  basis  of  the  arrangement  are  the  product 
of  international  compact.  They  provide  no  means  by  which  they  may 
be  amended,  and  they  can  be  amended  only  in  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  adopted,  i.  e.,  by  international  agreement  supplemented 
by  reciprocal  parliamentary  enactment.1 

1  Drage,  Austria-Hungary,  Chap.  12;  H.  Fried jung,  Der  Ausgleich  mit  Ungarn 
(Leipzig,  1877);  Count  Andrassy,  Ungarns  Ausgleich  mit  Osterreich  von  Jahre 
1867  (Leipzig,  1897);  L.  Eisenmann,  Le  compromis  austro-hongroise  (Paris,  1904). 
The  Austrian  and  Hungarian  texts  of  the  Ausgleich  laws,  with  German  versions  in 
parallel  columns,  are  printed  in  I.  Zolger,  Der  staatsrechtliche  Ausgleich  zwischen 
Osterreich  und  Ungarn  (Leipzig,  191 1).  English  versions  are  in  Dodd,  Modern  Con- 
stitutions, L,  1 14-1 22, and  Drage,  Austria-Hungary,  744-750,  753-766.  In  a  speech 
in  the  Hungarian  Chamber  November  23,  1903,  Count  Istvln  Tisza  sought  to  dem- 

509 


510  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


I.  THE  COMMON  ORGANS  OF  GOVERNMENT 

662.  The  Emperor-King. — Of  organs  of  government  which  the  two 
dominions  possess  in  common,  and  by  which  they  are  effectually  tied  to- 
gether administratively,  there  are  three:  (i)  the  monarch;  (2)  the  min- 
istries of  Foreign  Affairs,  War,  and  Finance;  and  (3)  the  Delegations. 
The  functions  and  prerogatives  of  the  monarch  are  three-fold,  i.  e.,  those 
which  he  possesses  as  emperor  of  Austria,  those  which  belong  to  him  as 
king  of  Hungary,  and  those  vested  in  him  as  head  of  the  Austro-Hun- 
garian  union.    In  theory,  and  largely  in  practice,  the  three  sets  of  rela- 
tionships are  clearly  distinguished.    All,  however,  must  be  combined  in 
the  same  individual.    The  law  of  succession  is  the  same,  and  it  would 
not  be  possible  for  Francis  Joseph,  for  example,  to  vacate  the  kingship 
of  Hungary  while  retaining  the  Imperial  office  in  the  co-ordinated  state. 
But  there  is  a  coronation  at  Vienna  and  another  at  Budapest;  the 
royal  title  reads  "Emperor  of  Austria,  King  of  Bohemia,  etc.,  and 
Apostolic  King  of  Hungary";  and  the  relations  of  the  sovereign  with 
each  of  the  two  governments  are  most  of  the  time  conducted  precisely 
as  if  the  other  of  the  two  were  non-existent.    In  the  capacity  of  dual 
sovereign  the  monarch's  principal  functions  comprise  the  command  of 
the  army  and  navy,1  the  appointment  of  heads  of  the  joint  ministries, 
the  promulgation  of  ordinances  applying  to  the  states  in  common,  and 
the  giving  of  assent  to  measures  enacted  by  the  dual  legislative  body. 

663.  The  Joint  Ministries. — By  the  Compromise  of  1867  the  three 
departments  of  administration  which  most  obviously  require  concen- 
tration and  uniformity  were  established  upon  a  basis  of  community 
between  the  two  governmental  systems.    The  first  of  these  is  the  min- 
istry of  Foreign  Affairs.    Neither  Austria  nor  Hungary  as  such  main- 
tains diplomalic'mTercburse  with  other  powers.    Under  the  direction 
of  the  Foreign  Minister  (known,  until  1871,  as  the  Imperial  Chan- 
cellor) are  maintained  all  relations  with  foreign  governments,  through 
a  diplomatic  and  consular  service  which  represents  in  every  respect 

onstrate  that,  properly,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  Austro-Hungarian  Ausgleich — 
that  the  two  instruments  of  1867  are  not  only  of  different  date  but  are  essentially 
independent,  each  being  revocable  at  will  by  the  power  by  which  it  was  enacted. 
An  able  polemic  in  opposition  to  the  views  of  Tisza  is  to  be  found  in  F.  Tezner, 
Ausgleichrecht  und  Ausgleichspolitik  (Vienna,  1907).  Tezner  is  an  Austrian  pub- 
licist. 

1  As  an  illustration  of  the  sensitiveness  of  the  Hungarians  in  the  matter  of  their 
Austrian  relations  the  fact  may  be  cited  that  in  1889,  after  prolonged  effort,  an 
arrangement  was  procured  in  accordance  with  which  the  joint  sovereign,  in  the 
capacity  of  commander  of  the  armed  forces,  is  known  as  Emperor  and  King,  not  as 
Emperor-King. 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  THE  JOINT  GOVERNMENT  511 

the  monarchy  as  a  whole.  Commercial  treaties,  and  treaties  stipulat- 
ing changes  of  territory  or  imposing  burdens  upon  the  state  or  upon 
any  part  of  it,  require  the  assent  of  both  the  parliament  at  Vienna  and 
that  at  Budapest. 

The  second  common  ministry  is  that  of  War.  With  respect  to  mili- 
tary and  naval  administration  there  has  been  no  little  misunderstand- 
ing, and  even  ill-feeling,  between  the  two  states.  The  instruments 
of  1867  vest  the  supreme  command  of  the  army  and  navy  in  the  joint 
monarch,  yet  the  armed  establishments  of  the  states  are  maintained  on 
the  basis  of  separate,  even  if  approximately  identical,  laws,  and  each 
is  placed  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  a  separate  minister 
of  national  defence.  Each  country  maintains  its  independent  ar- 
rangements for  the  raising  of  the  yearly  contingent  of  recruits.  It  is 
only  after  the  quotas  have  been  raised  that  the  dual  monarch  can 
exercise  his  power  of  appointing  officers  and  regulating  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  forces.  The  authority  of  the  joint  war  minister  is  confined 
largely  to  matters  of  secondary  importance,  such  as  equipment  and  the 
commissariat.  Only  a  close  understanding  between  the  ministries 
at  Vienna  and  Budapest  can  be  depended  upon,  in  the  last  analysis, 
to  avert  an  utter  breakdown  of  the  admittedly  precarious  military 
establishment.1 

The  third  common  ministry  is  that  of  Finance.  Each  of  the  two 
states  maintains  an  independent  finance  ministry  and  carries  its  own 
budget,  because,  within  certain  limitations,  the  administration  of 
fiscal  matters  is  left  to  the  states  in  their  separate  capacities;  but 
questions  of  joint  expenditure,  the  establishment  of  the  joint  budget, 
and  the  examination  of  accounts  are  committed  to  a  common  ministry 
at  Vienna.  The  powers  of  the  joint  minister  of  finance  are,  in  point  of 
fact,  limited.  Like  the  other  joint  ministers,  he  may  not  be  a  member 
of  either  the  Austrian  or  the  Hungarian  cabinet,  nor  may  he  have 
access  to  the  separate  parliaments.  His  function  is  essentially  that 
of  a  cashier.  He  receives  the  contributions  made  by  the  two  states 
to  the  common  expenses  and  hands  them  over  to  the  several  depart- 
ments. Until  the  annexation  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  in  1908, 
it  devolved  upon  him,  by  special  arrangement,  to  administer  the 
affairs  of  these  semi-dependent  territories. 

664.  Fiscal  and  Economic  Arrangements. — In  1867  it  was  agreed 
that  the  common  expenditures  of  Austria  and  Hungary  should  be  met, 

1  V.  Duruy,  L'Annde  austro-hongroise,  in  Revue  de  Paris,  Jan.  15,  1909;  M.  B., 
L'Arme"  autrichienne,  in  Annales  ties  Sciences  Politiques,  May,  1909;  Com. 
Davin,  La  marine  austro-hongroise,  in  Questions  Diplomatique*  et  Coloniales, 
Aug.  16,  1909. 


512  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

in  so  far  as  possible,  from  the  joint  revenues,  especially  the  customs, 
and  that  all  common  outlays  in  excess  of  these  revenues  should  be 
borne  by  the  states  in  a  proportion  to  be  fixed  at  decennial  intervals 
by  the  Reichsrath  and  the  Hungarian  Parliament.  Other  joint  inter- 
ests of  an  economic  nature — trade,  customs,  the  debt,  and  railway 
policy — were  left  likewise  to  be  readjusted  at  ten-year  intervals.  In 
respect  to  contributions,  the  arrangement  hit  upon  originally  was  that 
all  common  deficits  should  be  made  up  by  quotas  proportioned  to  the 
tax  returns  of  the  two  countries,  namely,  Austria  70  per  cent  and 
Hungary  30  per  cent.  As  has  been  pointed  out,  the  periodic  over- 
hauling of  the  economic  relationships  of  the  two  states  has  been  pro- 
ductive of  frequent  and  disastrous  controversy.  The  task  was  accom- 
plished successfully  in  the  law  of  June  27,  1878,  and  again  in  that  of 
May  21,  1887.  But  the  readjustment  due  in  1897  had  the  curious 
fortune  not  to  be  completed  until  the  year  in  which  another  readjust- 
ment was  due,  i.  e.,  1907.  To  the  parliamentary  contests,  at  both 
Vienna  and  Budapest,  by  which  the  decade  1897-1907  was  filled  some 
allusion  has  been  made.1  They  involved  distinctly  the  most  critical 
test  of  stability  to  which  the  Ausgleich  has  been  subjected  since  its 
establishment.  During  the  period  various  features  of  the  pre-existing 
arrangements  were  continued  in  force  by  royal  decree  or  by  provisional 
parliamentary  vote,  but  not  until  October,  1907,  were  the  economic  re- 
lation of  the  two  states  put  once  more  upon  a  normal  basis.  Through- 
out the  decade  the  Emperor-King  exercised  repeatedly  the  authority 
with  which  he  is  invested  by  law  of  1867  to  fix  the  ratio  of  contribu- 
tions for  one  year  at  a  time,  when  action  cannot  be  had  on  the  part  of 
the  legislative  bodies.  The  ratio  prevailing  during  the  period  was 
Austria  66|-f  per  cent  and  Hungary  33^  per  cent. 

By  the  agreement  of  1907,  concluded  for  the  usual  ten-year  period, 
the  Hungarian  quota  was  raised  from  the  figure  mentioned  to  36.4 
per  cent.  The  customs  alliance,  established  in  1867  and  renewed  in 
1878  and  1887,  was  superseded  by  a  customs  and  commercial  treaty, 
in  accordance  with  which  each  state  maintains  what  is  technically  a 
separate  customs  system,  although  until  the  expiration  of  existing 
conventions  with  foreign  powers  in  1917  the  tariff  arrangements  of  the 
two  states  must  remain  identical.  Under  the  conditions  which  have 
arisen  the  customs  unity  of  the  monarchy  is  likely  to  be  disrupted  in 
fact,  as  already  it  is  in  law,  upon  the  advent  of  the  year  mentioned. 
Thereafter  commercial  treaties  with  foreign  nations  will  be  nego- 
tiated in  the  name  of  the  two  states  concurrently  and  will  be 
signed,  not  merely  by  the  common  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  but 
1  See  pp.  479-48i,  502-504- 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  THE  JOINT  GOVERNMENT  513 

also  by  a  special  Austrian  and  a  special  Hungarian  representa- 
tive.1 

666.  The  Delegations:  Organization  and  Sessions. — All  legislative 
power  of  the  Reichsrath  and  of  the  Hungarian  Parliament,  in  so  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  joint  affairs  of  the  states,  is  exercised  by  two  "delega- 
tions, "  one  representing  each  of  the  two  parliaments.  ThlFAustrian 
Delegation  consists  of  sixty  members,  twenty  of  whom  are  chosen  by 
the  Herrenhaus  from  its  own  members,  and  the  other  forty  of  whom 
are  elected  by  the  Abgeordnetenhaus  in  such  manner  that  the  deputies 
from  each  province  designate  a  number  of  delegates  allotted  to  them 
by  law.  The  Hungarian  Delegation  consists  likewise  of  sixty  members, 
twenty  elected  by  and  from  the  upper,  forty  by  and  from  the  lower, 
chamber,  with  the  further  requirement  that  there  shall  be  included 
four  of  the  Croatian  members  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  one  of 
the  Croatians  in  the  Chamber  of  Magnates.  All  members  of  both 
Delegations  are  elected  annually  and  may  be  re-elected.  They  must 
be  convoked  by  the  Emperor-King  at  least  once  a  year.  Every  device 
is  employed  to  lay  emphasis  upon  the  absolute  equality  of  the  two 
Delegations,  and  of  the  states  they  represent,  even  to  the  extent  of 
having  the  sessions  held  alternately  in  Vienna  and  Budapest.  The  two 
bodies  meet  in  separate  chambers,  each  under  a  president  whom  it 
elects,  but  the  proposals  of  the  Government  are  laid  before  both  at  the 
same  time  by  the  joint  ministry.  In  the  Austrian  Delegation  all  pro- 
ceedings are  conducted  in  the  German  tongue;  in  the  Hungarian,  in 
Magyar;  and  all  communications  between  the  two  are  couched  in  both 
languages.  Sittings,  as  a  rule,  are  public.  In  the  event  of  a  failure  to 
agree  after  a  third  exchange  of  communications  there  may  be,  upon 
demand  of  either  Delegation,  a  joint  session.  Upon  this  occasion  there 
is  no  debate,  but  merely  the  taking  of  a  vote,  in  which  there  must 
participate  an  absolutely  equal  number  of  members  of  the  two  organ- 
izations. 

666.  The  Delegations:  Powers. — The  members  of  the  common 
ministry  have  the  right  to  share  hi  all  deliberations  of  the  Delegations 
and  to  present  their  projects  personally  or  through  deputies.  They 
must  be  heard  whenever  they  desire.  Each  Delegation,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  a  right  to  address  questions  to  the  joint  ministry,  or  to  any 
one  of  its  members,  and  to  require  answers  and  explanations.  By 
concurrent  vote  of  the  two  bodies  a  joint  minister  may  be  impeached. 

1 L.  Louis- Jaray,  Les  relations  austro-hongroises  et  le  nouveau  compromis  6co- 
nomique,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  Jan.  16  and  Feb.  i,  1908;  and 
Les  dispositions  6conomiques  du  nouveau  compromis  austro-hongrois,  in  Revue 
Itconomique  Internationale,  March,  1908. 


514  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

In  such  a  case  the  judges  consist  of  twenty-four  independent  and 
legally  trained  citizens  representing  equally  the  two  countries,  chosen 
by  the  Delegations,  but  not  members  thereof.  The  power  is  one  very 
unlikely  to  be  exercised;  in  truth,  the  responsibility  of  the  ministers 
to  the  Delegations  is  more  theoretical  than  actual. 

The  functions  of  the  Delegations  are  severely  restricted.  They  ex- 
tend in  no  case  beyond  the  common  affairs  of  the  two  states;  and  they 
comprise  little  more  than  the  voting  of  supplies  asked  by  the  Govern- 
ment and  a  certain  supervision  of  the  common  administrative  ma- 
chinery. Of  legislative  power,  in  the  proper  sense,  the  two  bodies 
possess  virtually  none.  Practically  all  law  in  the  dual  monarchy 
takes  the  form  of  statutes  enacted  concurrently  by  the  separate  parlia- 
ments of  Austria  and  Hungary.  The  system  is  not  ideal.  It  involves 
delay,  confusion,  and  an  excess  of  partisan  wrangling.  Probably  upon 
no  other  basis,  however,  would  even  the  semblance  of  an  Austro- 
Hungarian  union  be  possible.  The  existing  arrangement  operates 
somewhat  to  the  advantage  of  Hungary,  because  the  Hungarian 
Delegation  is  a  body  which  votes  solidly  together,  whereas  the  Austrian 
is  composed  of  mutally  hostile  racial  and  political  groups. 

II.  THE  TERRITORIES  OF  BOSNIA  AND  HERZEGOVINA 

567.  Annexation  of  the  Provinces,  1908. — By  the  Congress  of 
Berlin,  in  1878,  Austria  was  authorized,  ostensibly  in  the  interest  of 
the  peace  of  Europe,  to  occupy  and  administer  the  neighboring  prov- 
inces of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina;  and  from  that  date  until  1908,  al- 
though the  provinces  continued  under  the  nominal  sovereignty  of 
the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  their  affairs  were  managed  regularly  by  the 
Austro-Hungarian  minister  of  finance.  The  eventual  absorption  of 
the  territories  by  the  dual  monarchy  was  not  unexpected,  but  it  came 
in  virtue  of  a  coup  by  which  the  European  world  was  thrown  for  a  time 
into  some  agitation.  The  revolution  at  Constantinople  during  the 
summer  of  1908,  accompanied  by  the  threatened  dissolution  of  Eu- 
ropean Turkey,  created  precisely  the  opportunity  for  which  the  au- 
thorities at  Vienna  had  long  waited.  October  5,  Prince  Ferdinand  of 
Bulgaria  proclaimed  the  complete  separation  of  Bulgaria  from  the 
Sultan's  dominions  and  assumed  the  title  of  king.  Two  days  later 
Emperor  Francis  Joseph  proclaimed  to  the  inhabitants  of  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina  the  immediate  extension  of  Austro-Hungarian  sov- 
ereignty over  them,  alleging  that  the  hour  had  arrived  when  they 
ought  to  be  raised  to  a  higher  political  level  and  accorded  the  benefits 
of  Austro-Hungarian  constitutionalism.  Among  the  population  of  the 


AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  THE  JOINT  GOVERNMENT  515 

annexed  provinces  the  Roman  Catholic  element  approved  the  union, 
but  the  Greek  Orthodox  and  Mohammedan  majority  warmly  opposed 
it.  The  people  of  the  provinces  are  Servian  in  race,  and  in  the  interest 
of  the  Servian  union  which  it  was  hoped  at  some  time  to  bring  about 
Servia  and  Montenegro  protested  loudly,  and  even  began  preparations 
for  war.  The  annexation  constituted  a  flagrant  infraction  of  the  Ber- 
lin Treaty,  and  during  some  weeks  the  danger  of  international  com- 
plications was  grave.  Eventually,  however,  on  the  understanding 
that  the  new  possessor  should  render  to  Turkey  certain  financial  com- 
pensation, the  various  powers  more  or  less  grudgingly  yielded  their 
assent  to  the  change  of  status. 

668.  The  Constitution  of  1910:  the  Diet— At  the  time  of  the  an- 
nexation it  was  promised  that  the  provinces  should  be  granted  a  con- 
stitution. The  pledge  was  fulfilled  in  the  fundamental  laws  which  were 
promulgated  by  the  Vienna  Government  February  22,  1910.  The 
constitution  proper  consists  of  a  preamble  and  three  sections,  of  which 
the  first  relates  to  civil  rights,  the  second  to  the  composition  of  the 
Diet,  and  the  third  to  the  competence  of  the  Diet.  Under  the  terms 
of  the  preamble  the  pre-existing  military  and  administrative  arrange- 
ments are  perpetuated.  The  civil  rights  section  extends  to  the  an- 
nexed provinces  the  principal  provisions  of  the  Austrian  constitution 
in  respect  to  equality  before  the  law,  freedom  of  personal  movement, 
the  protection  of  individual  liberty,  the  independence  of  judges, 
freedom  of  conscience,  autonomy  of  recognized  religious  communities, 
the  right  of  free  expression  of  opinion,  the  abolition  of  restrictive 
censorship,  the  freedom  of  scientific  investigation,  secrecy  of  postal 
and  telegraphic  communications,  and  the  rights  of  association  and 
public  meeting. 

The  second  section  creates  a  diet  of  seventy-two  elected  and  twenty 
ex-officio  representatives,  fifteen  of  the  latter  being  dignitaries  of  the 
Mohammedan,  Servian,  Greek  Orthodox  and  Roman  Catholic  religious 
communities.  The  presidential  bureau,  consisting  of  one  president 
and  two  vice-presidents,  is  appointed  annually  by  the  crown  at  the 
opening  of  the  session.  Each  creed  is  regularly  to  be  represented  in 
the  bureau,  the  presidential  office  being  held  by  a  Servian,  a  Moham- 
medan, and  a  Croat  in  annual  rotation.  To  be  valid,  the  decisions  of 
the  Diet  require  the  presence  of  a  majority  of  the  members,  except 
when  ecclesiastical  matters  are  under  discussion.  Upon  such  occasions 
the  presence  of  four-fifths  of  the  Diet,  and  a  two-thirds  majority,  is 
required. 

The  third  section  excludes  from  the  legislative  competence  of  the 
Diet  all  joint  Austro-Hungarian  affairs  and  questions  pertaining  to 


516  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  armed  forces  and  to  customs  arrangements.  The  Diet  is,  however, 
empowered  to  elect  a  national  council  of  nine  members  and  to  com- 
mission it  to  lay  the  views  of  the  Diet  before  the  Austro-Hungarian 
Government.  In  all  other  matters,  such  as  civil,  penal,  police  and 
commercial  law,  industrial  and  agrarian  legislation,  sanitation,  com- 
munications, taxation,  the  provincial  estimates,  the  issue  and  conver- 
sion of  loans,  and  the  sale  or  mortgaging  of  provincial  property,  the 
Diet  has  a  free  hand.  Government  measures  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Diet  require,  however,  the  previous  sanction  of  the  Austrian  and  the 
Hungarian  cabinets,  whose  assent  is  also  necessary  before  bills  passed 
by  the  Diet  can  receive  the  sanction  of  the  crown. 

669.  The  Electoral  System. — Subsequent  statutes  regulate  the  fran- 
chise and  electoral  procedure.  First  of  all,  the  seventy-two  elective 
seats  in  the  Diet  are  divided  among  the  adherents  of  the  various  reli- 
gious denominations,  the  Servians  receiving  31,  the  Mohammedans  24, 
and  the  Catholic  Croats  16.  One  seat  is  reserved  for  a  representative 
of  the  Jews.  The  seats  are  divided,  furthermore,  into  three  curiae,  or 
electoral  classes,  eighteen  being  allotted  to  a  first  class  composed  of 
large  landed  proprietors  and  the  heaviest  taxpayers,  twenty  to  a  sec- 
ond class  composed  of  urban  electors,  and  thirty-four  to  a  third  class 
composed  of  rural  electors.  The  franchise  is  bestowed  upon  all  subjects 
of  the  crown,  born  in  the  provinces  or  possessing  one  year's  residential 
qualification,  who  are  of  the  male  sex  and  have  completed  their  twenty- 
fourth  year.  In  the  first  of  the  three  classes  women  possess  the  fran- 
chise, although  they  may  exercise  it  only  by  male  deputy.  Candidates 
for  election  must  have  completed  their  thirtieth  year  and  must  be  of 
the  male  sex  and  in  full  enjoyment  of  civil  rights.  Civil  and  railway 
servants,  as  well  as  public  school  teachers,  are  not  eligible.  In  the 
first  and  second  classes  votes  are  recorded  in  writing,  but  in  the  third, 
or  rural,  class,  voting,  by  reason  of  the  large  proportion  of  illiterates, 
is  oral.  In  the  second  and  third  (urban  and  rural)  classes  the  sys- 
tem of  single-member  constituencies  has  been  adopted.  The  prov- 
inces are  divided  into  as  many  Servian,  Mohammedan,  and  Catholic 
constituencies,  with  separate  registers,  as  there  are  seats  allotted  to 
the  respective  creeds.  For  the  Jews  all  the  towns  of  the  two  provinces 
form  a  single  constituency.1 

1  The  texts  of  the  organic  acts  of  1910  are  printed  in  K.  Lamp,  Die  Rechtsnatur 
der  Verfassung  Bosniens  und  der  Herzegowina  vom  17  Februar  1910,  in  Jahrbuch 
des  Offentlichen  Rechts  (Tiibingen,  1911),  V.;  L.  Geller,  Bosnisch-herzegowinische 
Verfassungs  und  politische  Grundgesetze  (Vienna,  1910);  and  in  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Volkerrecht  und  Bundesstaatsrecht,  IV.,  No.  5.  See  also  F.  Komlossy,  Das  Rechts- 
verhaltniss  Bosniens  und  des  Herzegowina  zu  Ungarn  (Pressburg,  1911). 


PART  VII.— THE  LOW  COUNTRIES 

CHAPTER  XXVIII 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND 

I.  A  CENTURY  OF  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT 

Geographical  juxtaposition,  combined  with  historical  circum- 
stance, has  determined  that  between  the  two  modern  kingdoms  of 
Holland  and  Belgium,  widely  as  they  differ  in  many  fundamental 
characteristics,  relations  should  be  continuous  and  close.  Both  na- 
tions have  sprung  from  groups  of  provinces  comprised  within  the 
original  Low  Countries,  or  Netherlands.  Following  the  memorable 
contest  of  the  Dutch  with  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  the  seven  provinces  to 
the  north  achieved  their  independence  at  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  and,  under  the  name  of  the  United  Provinces,  built 
up  a  system  of  government,  republican  in  form  though  in  operation 
much  of  the  time  really  autocratic,  which  survived  through  more  than 
two  hundred  years.  The  ten  provinces  to  the  south  continued  under 
the  sovereignty  of  Spain  until  1713,  when  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht 
they  were  transferred  to  Austria.  They  did  not  attain  the  status  of 
independent  nationality  until  1831. 

570.  The  French  Domination,  1793-1814.— The  constitutional 
arrangements  operative  in  the  Holland  and  Belgium  of  to-day  are  to 
be  regarded  as  products  largely  of  the  era  of  the  French  Revolution 
and  of  the  Napoleonic  domination.  Between  1795  and  1810  both  groups 
of  Low  Country  provinces  were  absorbed  by  France,  and  both  were 
forced  quite  out  of  their  accustomed  political  channels.  The  provinces 
comprising  the  Austrian  Netherlands  were  overrun  by  a  French  army 
early  in  1793.  By  decree  of  October  i,  1795,  they  were  incorporated 
in  the  French  Republic,  being  erected  into  nine  departments;  and  by 
the  Treaty  of  Luneville,  February  9,  1801,  they  were  definitely  ceded 
by  Austria  to  France.1  February  i,  1793,  the  French  Republic  de- 
clared war  upon  Holland.  During  the  winter  of  1794-1795  the  Dutch 

1  L.  Delplace,  La  Belgique  sous  la  domination  franfaise,  2  vols.  (Louvain,  1896); 
L.  de  Lanzac  de  Laborie,  La  domination  frangaise  en  Belgique,  2  vols.  (Paris,  1895). 

517 


518  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

provinces  were  occupied,  and  by  the  Treaty  of  The  Hague,  May  16, 
1795,  they  were  erected  into  a  new  nationality  known  as  the  Batavian 
Republic,  under  the  protection  of  France.1  The  constitution  of  the 
old  republic  was  thoroughly  overhauled  and  the  stadtholderate,  long 
in  the  possession  of  the  house  of  Orange,  was  abolished.  To  the  con- 
siderable body  of  anti-Orange  republicans  the  coming  of  the  French 
was,  indeed,  not  unwelcome.  May  24,  1806,  the  Batavian  Republic 
was  converted  by  Napoleon  into  the  kingdom  of  Holland,  and  Louis 
Bonaparte,  younger  brother  of  the  French  Emperor,  was  set  up  as  the 
unwilling  sovereign  of  an  unwilling  people.  Nominally,  the  new  king- 
dom was  both  constitutional  and  independent;  practically,  it  was  an 
autocracy  and  a  dependency  of  France.  King  Louis  labored  con- 
scientiously to  safeguard  the  interests  of  his  Dutch  subjects,  but  in 
vain.  After  four  years  he  abdicated,  under  pressure;  whereupon, 
July  9,  1 8 10,  an  Imperial  edict  swept  away  what  remained  of  the 
independent  status  of  the  Dutch  people  and  incorporated  the  kingdom 
absolutely  with  France.  The  ancient  provinces  were  replaced  by 
seven  departments;  to  the  Dutch  were  assigned  six  seats  in  the  French 
Senate,  three  in  the  Council  of  State,  and  twenty-five  in  the  Legisla- 
tive Body;  a  lieutenant-general  was  established  at  the  head  of  the 
administrative  system;  and  no  effort  was  spared  to  obliterate  all 
survivals  of  Dutch  nationality. 

571.  The  Settlement  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna:  the  Constitution  of 
1815. — With  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon  the  fate  of  both  the  Dutch 
and  the  Belgian  provinces  fell  to  the  arbitrament  of  the  allied  powers. 
In  the  first  Treaty  of  Paris,  concluded  May  30, 1814,  between  the  Allies 
on  the  one  side  and  France  on  the  other,  it  was  stipulated  that  the 
Belgian  territories  should  be  joined  with  Holland  and  that  the  whole, 
under  the  name  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  United  Netherlands,  should  be 
assigned  to  the  restored  house  of  Orange,  in  the  person  of  William  I., 
son  of  the  stadtholder  William  V.  Already,  consequent  upon  the 
Dutch  revolt  which  followed  the  defeat  of  Napoleon  at  Leipzig, 
William  had  been  recalled  from  his  eighteen-year  exile.  December  i, 
1813,  he  had  accepted  formally  the  sovereignty  of  the  Dutch  provinces, 
and  early  in  1814  a  constitution  had  been  drawn  up  and  put  in  opera- 
tion. The  desire  of  the  Allies,  particularly  of  Great  Britain,  was  that 
there  should  be  brought  into  existence  in  the  Low  Countries  a  state 
which  should  be  sufficiently  powerful  to  constitute  a  barrier  to  possible 
aggressions  of  France  upon  the  north.  The  union  of  the  Belgian  with 
the  Dutch  provinces,  was  intended  furthermore,  to  compensate  the 

1  L.  Legrand,  La  revolution  franfaise  en  Hollander  la  republique  batave  (Paris. 
1894). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  519 

Dutch  in  some  measure  for  their  losses  of  colonial  possessions  to 
Great  Britain  during  the  war.  By  the  Final  Act  of  the  Congress  of 
Vienna,  June  9, 1815,  and  by  the  second  Peace  of  Paris,  November  20 
following,  the  arrangement  was  ratified.  With  Holland  and  the 
Austrian  Netherlands  were  united  in  the  new  state  the  bishopric  of 
Liege,  the  duchy  of  Limburg,  and  the  duchy  (henceforth  to  be  known 
as  the  grand-duchy)  of  Luxemburg.  The  last-mentioned  territory, 
while  included  in  the  Germanic  Confederation,  was  bestowed  upon 
the  Dutch  sovereign  in  compensation  for  German  principalities  ceded 
by  him  at  this  time  to  Prussia.1  March  15,  1815,  William  began  his 
reign  under  the  new  regime  in  Holland,  and  September  27  following  he 
was  crowned  at  Brussels. 

In  fulfillment  of  a  promise  made  his  people,  King  William  promul- 
gated, August  24,  1815,  a  new  constitution,  drafted  by  a  commission 
consisting  of  an  equal  number  of  Dutch  and  Belgian  members.  The 
instrument  provided  for  a  States-General  of  two  chambers,  one  con- 
sisting of  members  appointed  for  life  by  the  crown,  the  other  com- 
posed of  an  equal  number  (55)  of  Dutch  and  Belgian  deputies  elected 

1  These  ceded  territories  comprised  the  ancestral  domains  of  the  house  of  Nassau 
which  lay  in  Germany — Dietz,  Siegen,  Hadamar,  and  Dillenburg.  The  grand- 
duchy  of  Luxemburg  was  joined  with  the  Netherlands  by  a  personal  union  only, 
and  in  its  capital,  as  a  fortress  of  the  German  Confederation,  was  maintained  a 
Prussian  garrison.  William  dealt  with  the  territory,  however,  precisely  as  if  it 
were  an  integral  part  of  his  kingdom,  extending  to  it  the  constitution  of  1815  and 
administering  its  affairs  through  the  agency  of  Dutch  officials.  At  the  time  of  the 
Belgian  revolt,  in  1830,  Luxemburg  broke  away  from  Dutch  rule  and  there  ensued 
in  the  history  of  the  grand-duchy  an  anomalous  period  during  which  the  legal 
status  of  the  territory  was  hotly  disputed.  In  1839  the  Conference  of  London  as- 
signed to  Belgium  that  portion  of  the  grand-duchy  which  was  contiguous  to  her 
frontiers  and  remanded  the  remainder  to  the  status  of  an  hereditary  possession  of 
the  house  of  Nassau.  In  1856  a  separate  constitution  was  granted  the  people  of 
the  territory,  and  in  1867,  following  the  dissolution  of  the  old  Germanic  Confedera- 
tion, the  grand-duchy  was  declared  by  an  international  conference  at  London  to 
be  a  sovereign  and  independent  (but  neutral)  state,  under  the  guaranty  of  the 
powers.  The  connection  between  Luxemburg  and  Holland  was  thereafter  purely 
dynastic.  Until  the  death  of  William  III.,  in  1890,  the  king  of  the  Netherlands  was 
also  grand-duke  of  Luxemburg;  but  with  the  accession  of  Queen  Wilhelmina  the 
union  of  the  two  countries  was  terminated,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  females  were 
at  that  time  excluded  from  the  throne  of  the  grand-duchy.  A  law  of  1907,  how- 
ever, vested  the  succession  in  the  princess  Marie,  eldest  daughter  of  the  reigning 
Grand-Duke  William;  and  upon  the  death  of  her  father,  Feb.  26,  1912,  this  heiress 
succeeded  to  the  grand-ducal  throne.  The  head  of  the  state  is  the  grand-duke  (or 
grand-duchess).  There  is  a  council  of  state  nominated  by  the  sovereign  and  a  cham- 
ber of  deputies  of  53  members,  elected  directly  by  the  cantons  for  six  years.  The 
state  has  an  area  of  but  998  square  miles  and  a  population  (in  1910)  of  259,891. 
P.  Eyschen,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  grossherzogtums  Luxemburg  (Tubingen,  1910). 


520  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

by  the  provincial  estates.  Bills  might  be  rejected,  but  might  not  be 
originated  or  amended,  by  this  assembly.  The  suffrage  was  severely 
restricted;  trial  by  jury  was  not  guaranteed;  the  budget  was  to  be 
voted  for  a  number  of  years  at  a  time;  ministers  were  declared  re- 
sponsible solely  to  the  king;  and,  all  in  all,  there  was  in  the  new  system 
little  enough  of  liberalism.  When  the  instrument  was  laid  before  a 
Belgian  assembly  it  was  overwhelmingly  rejected.  None  the  less  it 
was  declared  in  effect,  and  it  continued  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
united  dominions  of  William  I.  until  1830. 

672.  The  Belgian  Revolution*  1830-1831. — Friction  between  the 
Dutch  and  the  Belgians  was  from  the  outset  incessant.  The  union  was 
essentially  an  artificial  one,  and  the  honest  efforts  of  the  king  to  bring 
about  a  genuine  amalgamation  but  emphasized  the  irreconcilable  dif- 
ferences of  language,  religion,  economic  interest,  and  political  inheri- 
tance that  separated  the  two  peoples.  The  population  of  Belgium  was 
3,400,000;  that  of  Holland  but  2,000,000.  Yet  the  voting  power  of  the 
former  in  the  lower  legislative  chamber  was  no  greater  than  that  of  the 
latter,  and  in  fact  the  Dutch  were  able  all  the  while  to  maintain  in  that 
body  a  small  working  majority.  Administrative  offices  were  filled,  in 
large  part,  by  Dutchmen,  and  the  attitude  quite  commonly  assumed 
(in  a  measure,  without  doubt,  unconsciously)  by  the  public  authorities 
strongly  suggested  that  Holland  was  the  preponderating  power  and 
Belgium  little  more  than  so  much  subjugated  territory.  The  upshot 
was  discontent  and  eventual  rebellion.  In  1828  the  principal  political 
parties  of  Belgium,  the  Catholics  and  the  Liberals,  drew  together 
in  the  "  Union,"  the  object  of  which  was  to  bring  about  the  recognition 
of  Belgian  independence,  or,  in  the  event  that  this  should  prove  im- 
possible of  attainment,  the  establishment  of  thoroughgoing  Belgian 
autonomy,  with  no  union  with  Holland  save  of  a  purely  personal 
character  through  the  crown.  Inspired  by  the  success  of  the  July 
Revolution  in  France,  and  hopeful  of  obtaining  French  assistance,  the 
Belgians  in  August,  1830,  broke  into  open  revolt.  After  a  period  of 
violence,  a  provisional  government  at  Brussels,  October  4,  1830, 
proclaimed  Belgium's  independence  and  summoned  a  national  con- 
gress to  which  was  committed  the  task  of  drawing  up  a  scheme  of 
government.  Aroused  by  the  imminent  loss  of  half  of  his  dominion, 
King  William,  after  an  ineffectual  display  of  military  force,  offered 
concessions;  and  the  States-General  went  so  far  as  to  authorize  the 
establishment  in  the  southern  provinces  of  a  separate  administrative 
system,  such  as  at  one  time  would  have  met  the  Belgian  demand.  The 
day  for  compromise,  however,  had  passed.  The  Belgian  congress 
voted  overwhelmingly  for  the  establishment  of  an  independent  mon- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  521 

archy,  adopted  (February  7,  1831)  a  liberal  constitution,  and,  after 
offering  the  throne  without  avail  to  the  Duke  of  Nemours,  second  son 
of  Louis  Philippe  of  France,  selected  as  king  the  German  Prince 
Leopold  of  Saxe-Coburg,  who,  under  the  title  of  Leopold  I.,  was 
crowned  July  21  of  the  same  year. 

673.  The  Independence  of  Belgium. — These  proceedings  involved 
the  overturning  of  an  arrangement  which  the  Allies  in  1815  had  con- 
sidered essential  to  the  security  of  Europe.  Several  considerations, 
however, — among  them  the  outbreak  of  insurrection  in  Poland, — 
induced  the  powers  to  acquiesce  with  unexpected  readiness  in  the 
dissolution  of  the  loose- jointed  monarchy.  December  20,  1830,  a 
conference  of  the  five  principal  powers  at  London  formally  pronounced 
in  favor  of  a  permanent  separation,  and  when,  in  August,  1831,  a 
Dutch  army  crossed  the  frontier  and  inflicted  upon  the  Belgians  an 
overwhelming  defeat,  a  French  force  compelled  the  invaders  to  sur- 
render the  fruits  of  their  victory  and  to  retire  from  the  country.  A 
treaty  of  separation  was  drawn  up  by  the  London  conference  under 
date  of  November  25,  1831,  under  whose  terms  there  were  recog- 
nized both  the  independence  and  the  neutrality  of  the  new  Bel- 
gian monarchy.  William  of  Holland  protested  and  flatly  refused  to 
sign  the  instrument.  The  British  and  French  governments  com- 
pelled him  outwardly  to  acquiesce  in  the  agreement,  although  it  was 
not  until  April  19, 1839,  that  he  gave  it  his  formal  assent.  Embittered 
by  his  losses  and  chagrined  by  the  constitutional  amendments  to 
which  his  own  people  compelled  him  to  submit,  he  abdicated  in  1840 
in  favor  of  his  son.1 

574.  Constitutional  Revision  in  Holland. — After  1831  the  con- 
stitutional development  of  Holland  and  that  of  Belgium  move  in  sepa- 
rate channels.2  In  Holland  the  fundamental  law  of  1815  was  retained, 
but  the  modifications  which  have  been  introduced  in  it,  notably  in 
1840,  1848,  and  1887,  have  so  altered  its  character  as  to  have  made 
of  it  an  essentially  new  instrument.  The  revision  of  1840  was  forced 
upon  the  king  by  the  Liberals,  whose  position  was  strengthened  by 

1  On  the  constitutional  aspects  of  Dutch-Belgian  history  in  the  period  1815-1840 
see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X.,  Chap.  16  (bibliography,  pp.  848-851);  D.  C. 
Boulger,  History  of  Belgium,  2  vols.  (London,  1909),  I.;  Stern,  Geschichte  Europas, 
IV.,  Chap.  2.    General  works  of  importance  include  J.  B.  Nothomb,  Essai  his- 
torique  et  politique  sur  la  revolution  beige,  3  vols.  (4th  ed.,  Brussels,  1876);  C. 
White,  The  Belgian  Revolution,  2  vols.  (London,  1835);  C.  V.  de  Bavay,  Histoire 
de  la  Evolution  beige  de  1830  (Brussels,  1873);  L-  Hymans,  Histoire  politique  et 
parlementaire  de  la  Belgique  de  1814  a  1830  (Brussels,  1869);  J.  J.  Thonissen,  La 
Belgique  sous  le  r£gne  de  Leopold  I",  3  vols.  (Louvain,  1861). 

2  For  that  of  Belgium  see  p.  534. 


522  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  fiscal  chaos  into  which  the  nation  had  fallen  under  the  previous 
autocratic  regime.  The  reformers  got  very  much  less  than  they  de- 
manded. Instead  of  the  ministerial  responsibility  and  the  public 
control  of  the  finances  for  which  they  asked  they  procured  only  an 
arrangement  to  the  effect  that  the  budget  should  be  submitted  to  the 
States-General  every  two  years  and  the  colonial  balance  sheet  yearly, 
together  with  certain  changes  of  detail,  including  a  curtailment  of  the 
civil  list  and  a  reduction  of  the  membership  of  the  States-General  in 
consequence  of  the  loss  of  Belgium.  Yet  these  reforms  were  well 
worth  while. 

During  the  reign  of  William  II.  (1840-1849)  the  demand  for  con- 
stitutional revision  was  incessant.  The  king  was  profuse  in  promises, 
but  vacillating.  In  1844,  and  again  in  1845,  a  specific  programme  of 
revision  failed  of  adoption.  By  1848,  however,  economic  distress 
and  popular  discontent  had  become  so  pronounced  that  the  sovereign 
was  forced  to  act.  The  overthrow  of  Louis  Philippe  at  Paris,  too, 
was  not  without  effect.  March  17  the  king  named  a  state  commission 
of  five  members  which  was  authorized  to  draft  a  revision  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  the  resulting  instrument,  after  being  adopted  in  an 
extraordinary  session  of  the  States-General,  was  promulgated  Novem- 
ber 3.  The  revision  of  1848  introduced  into  the  Dutch  constitutional 
system  many  fundamental  changes.  Instead  of  being  appointed  by 
the  crown,  members  of  the  upper  branch  of  the  States-General  were 
thereafter  to  be  elected  by  the  provincial  estates;  and  in  the  choice 
of  members  of  the  lower  house,  direct  popular  elections  were  sub- 
stituted for  indirect.  The  ministers  of  the  king  were  made  responsible 
to  the  States- General,  and  the  powers  of  the  legislative  body  were 
otherwise  increased  through  the  extension  of  its  authority  over  colo- 
nial affairs,  provision  for  a  regular  annual  budget,  and,  most  of  all, 
recognition  of  the  right  to  initiate  and  to  amend  projects  of  legisla- 
tion. Constitutional  government  in  Holland  may  be  said  virtually 
to  have  had  its  beginning  in  1848. 

675.  The  Constitution  To-day. — Through  several  decades  following 
the  accession  of  William  III.,  in  1849, the  political  history  of  Holland 
comprises  largely  a  story  of  party  strife,  accentuated  by  the  efforts 
of  the  various  political  groups — especially  the  Liberals,  the  Conserva- 
tives, and  the  Catholics — to  apply  in  practice  the  parliamentary 
system.1  The  death  of  Prince  Alexander,  June  21,  1884,  occasioned 
a  constitutional  amendment  to  provide  for  the  accession  of  a  female 
sovereign  and  the  establishment  of  a  regency,  and  three  years  later  a 
parliamentary  deadlock  compelled  the  king  to  authorize  a  general 
1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chap.  23. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  523 

revision  of  the  fundamental  law  whereby  the  number  of  citizens  in 
possession  of  the  franchise  was  more  than  tripled.  The  constitution 
of  Holland  at  the  present  day  is  the  amended  instrument  of  November 
6,  1887.  It  comprises  more  than  two  hundred  articles,  being,  indeed, 
one  of  the  lengthiest  documents  of  its  kind  in  existence.  Like  most 
European  constitutions,  it  may  be  amended  by  the  ordinary  legislative 
organs,  though  under  specially  prescribed  conditions.  The  first  step 
in  the  amending  process  consists  in  the  adoption  by  the  legislative 
chambers  of  a  resolution  affirming  that  there  is  sufficient  reason  for 
taking  under  consideration  the  amendment  or  amendments  in  hand. 
Following  the  promulgation  of  this  resolution  the  chambers  are  re- 
quired to  be  dissolved.  The  newly  elected  houses  then  take  up  the 
project  for  final  disposition,  and  if  by  a  two-thirds  vote  they  adopt  it, 
and  if  the  sovereign  assents,  it  goes  into  operation.1 

IE.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

676.  Status  of  the  Sovereign. — The  government  of  Holland  2  is 
in  form  a  constitutional,  hereditary  monarchy.  Until  1884  the  royal 
succession  was  vested  exclusively  in  the  direct  male  line  of  the  house 
of  Orange-Nassau  in  the  order  of  primogeniture.  The  death,  however, 
in  the  year  mentioned,  of  the  sole  surviving  male  heir  occasioned, 
as  has  been  stated,  an  amendment  of  the  constitution  authorizing  the 
succession  of  a  female  heir,  in  default  of  a  male;  and,  upon  the  death 
of  William  III.,  November  23,  1890,  the  throne  accordingly  passed 
to  his  only  daughter,  the  present  Queen  Wilhelmina.3  In  default  of  a 
legal  heir,  the  successor  to  the  throne  is  to  be  designated  by  a  law 
presented  by  the  crown  and  acted  upon  by  a  joint  meeting  of  the  legis- 

1  Arts.  194-197.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  118.  The  text  of  the  consti- 
tution, in  English  translation,  is  printed  in  Dodd,  II.,  80-119.  An  excellent  anno- 
tated edition  of  the  instrument,  in  Dutch,  is  G.  L.  van  den  Helm,  De  Grondwet 
voor  het  koningrijk  der  Nederlanden  (The  Hague,  1889).  An  elaborate  commen- 
tary is  contained  in  J.  T.  Buijs,  De  Grondwet,  3  vols.  (Arnheim,  1883-1888). 
One  of  the  best  expositions  of  the  Dutch  constitutional  system  is  L.  de  Hartog,  Das 
Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  der  Niederlande  (Freiburg,  1886),  in  Marquardsen's 
Handbuch,  though  this  work  antedates  the  amendments  of  1887.  More  recent  is 
J.  van  Hamel,  Staats-  und  Verwaltungsrecht  des  Konigreichs  der  Niederlande 
(Hanover,  1910). 

2 The  official  title  is  "The  Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands."  In  ordinary  usage, 
however,  the  term  "Holland"  is  more  commonly  employed. 

3  Wilhelmina  was  at  the  time  but  ten  years  of  age.  Until  she  attained  her  ma- 
jority, August  31,  1898,  a  regency  was  exercised  by  the  Queen-Dowager  Emma. 
E.  Lemonon,  La  «•  accession  au  trdne  n6erlandais,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et 
Coloniales,  December  i,  1908. 


524  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

lative  chambers,  each  house  containing  for  this  purpose  double  its  usual 
number  of  members.  In  the  event  of  the  minority  or  the  incapacity 
of  the  sovereign  a  regency  is  established,  and  the  regent  is  named  by 
law  enacted  by  the  States-General  in  joint  session.1 

The  sovereign,  at  accession,  is  installed  in  a  public  joint  meeting  of 
the  two  chambers  in  the  city  of  Amsterdam,  and  is  required  to  take 
oath  always  "to  observe  and  maintain  the  constitution;"  whereupon 
the  members  of  the  chambers  solemnly  pledge  themselves  "to  do 
everything  that  a  good  and  loyal  States-General  ought  to  do."  The 
person  of  the  monarch  is  declared  inviolable.  For  the  maintenance 
of  the  royal  establishment  the  constitution  stipulates  that,  in  addition 
to  the  revenue  from  the  crown  lands,  the  sovereign  shall  be  entitled 
to  a  yearly  income,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  national  treasury,  together 
with  summer  and  winter  residences,  the  maximum  public  expenditure 
upon  which,  however,  is  restricted  to  50,000  florins  a  year.  At  each 
accession  the  amount  of  the  annual  stipend  is  fixed  by  law  for  the  entire 
reign.  William  II. 's  civil  list  was  1,000,000  guilders,  but  at  the  acces- 
sion of  William  III.  in  1849  the  amount  was  reduced  to  600,000,  where 
it  has  remained  to  the  present  day.  The  family  of  Orange  is  possessed 
of  a  large  private  fortune,  most  of  which  was  accumulated  by  William 
I.  from  a  variety  of  commercial  and  industrial  ventures.  The  Prince 
of  Orange,  as  heir  apparent,  is  accorded  by  the  state  an  annual  income 
of  100,000  florins,  which  is  increased  to  200,000  upon  his  contracting 
a  marriage  authorized  by  law. 

677.  The  Ministry. — Associated  with  the  sovereign  is  a  Council 
of  State,  consisting  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  (when  above  eighteen 
years  of  age)  and  of  a  variable  number  of  members  appointed  by  the 
crown.  The  number  of  members  is  at  present  fourteen.  By  the  terms 
of  the  constitution  the  sovereign  is  required  to  submit  for  discussion 
in  the  Council  of  State  all  matters  to  be  presented  to  the  States- 
General,  and  all  general  administrative  questions  of  the  kingdom  and 
of  its  colonies  and  possessions  throughout  the  world.2  Besides  this 
advisory  Council  of  State  there  is  a  Council  of  Ministers,  comprising 
the  heads  of  nine  executive  departments  established  by  the  sovereign. 
Nominally  the  ministers  are  appointed  and  dismissed  by  the  crown  at 
will,  but  actually  the  parliamentary  system  has  acquired  sufficient 
foothold  to  impose  upon  the  sovereign  a  considerable  measure  of  re- 
striction at  this  point.  All  decrees  and  orders  must  be  countersigned 
by  the  head  of  one  of  the  ministerial  departments ;  and  it  is  expressly 
stipulated  that  responsibility  for  all  royal  acts  shall  lie  with  the  min- 

1  Arts.  20-21.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  84. 

2  Art.  75.    Ibid.,  II.,  94. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  525 

isters.1  The  heads  of  ministerial  departments  are  privileged  to  occupy 
seats  in  both  branches  of  the  States-General,  but  unless  elected  reg- 
ularly as  members  they  possess  only  a  deliberative  voice  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  chamber  in  which  they  sit.2 

678.  The  Exercise  of  Executive  Powers. — Despite  the  liberalizing 
tendencies  which  underlie  Dutch  constitutional  history  since  1815, 
the  powers  of  the  crown  are  still  enormous.  Executive  authority  is 
vested  solely  in  the  sovereign  and  the  ministers,  and  there  are  not  a 
few  acts  of  importance  which  the  sovereign  may  perform  quite  in- 
dependently. The  sovereign  exercises  supreme  control  over  foreign 
relations,  declares  war,  concludes  and  ratifies  treaties,3  confers  titles 
of  nobility,  appoints  to  public  offices,  coins  money,  grants  pardons  in 
cases  of  penalties  imposed  by  judicial  sentence,  maintains  supreme  con- 
trol over  the  land  and  naval  forces,  settles  certain  types  of  disputes 
arising  between  provinces,  or  between  provinces  and  communes  or 
corporations,  issues  general  administrative  regulations,  recommends 
projects  of  law  to  the  States-General,  and  approves  or  rejects  all  meas- 
ures adopted  by  that  body.  The  sovereign  is,  however,  in  no  sense 
above  the  law.  Many  things  may  not  be  done  at  all,  save  under  the 
authority  of  a  regularly  enacted  piece  of  legislation.  Dispensations 
from  legal  provisions,  for  example,  may  be  granted  by  the  crown  only 
under  the  authority  of  law.  In  still  other  respects  the  sweeping  grants 
of  power  contained  within  the  constitution  are  tempered  by  counter- 
balancing stipulations.  Thus,  the  sovereign  has  the  right  to  coin 
money;  but  it  is  also  prescribed  that  "the  monetary  system  shall  be 
regulated  by  law."4  And  the  crown  has  "supreme  control  of  the 
colonies  and  possessions  of  the  kingdom  in  other  parts  of  the  world;" 
but  "  the  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  the  government  in  the  colonies 
and  possessions  shall  be  established  by  law."  5 

III.  THE  STATES-GENERAL  AND  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

579.  The  Chambers:  Earlier  Electoral  Arrangements. — Legislative 
power  within  the  kingdom  is  vested  jointly  in  the  sovereign  and  a 
States-General,  or  parliament,  of  two  chambers.  The  upper  chamber 

1  Art.  54.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  90. 

2  Art.  94.    Ibid.,  II.,  99. 

3  Save  that  treaties  which  provide  for  modifications  of  the  boundaries  of  the  state, 
or  impose  a  public  pecuniary  obligation,  or  contain  any  other  provision  touching 
legal  rights,  may  not  be  approved  by  the  crown  until  after  sanction  shall  have  been 
accorded  by  the  States-General,  unless  the  power  has  been  reserved  to  the  crown 
by  law  to  conclude  such  a  treaty.    Art.  59.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  91. 

'Art.  61.    Ibid.,  II.,  91. 
6  Art.  61.    Ibid. 


526  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

consists  of  fifty  members  elected  in  varying  proportions  by  the  "es- 
tates," or  representative  assemblies,  of  the  eleven  provinces.1  The 
term  of  office  is  nine  years,  and  one-third  of  the  members  retire  tri- 
ennially.  Male  citizens  who  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty,  who  are 
in  full  control  of  their  property,  and  who  have  not  been  disqualified 
by  judicial  sentence,  are  eligible  to  membership,  provided  either  that 
they  are  among  the  heaviest  payers  of  direct  national  taxes  or  that 
they  hold,  or  have  held,  one  or  more  principal  public  offices  designated 
by  law.2 

The  lower  chamber  consists  of  one  hundred  members  elected  di- 
rectly by  the  voters  of  the  kingdom  for  a  term  of  four  years.  Under 
the  original  constitution  of  1815  members  of  the  lower  house  were 
chosen  by  the  provincial  estates.  Direct  election  was  introduced  by 
the  constitutional  revision  of  1848.  During  several  decades  the  fran- 
chise, based  upon  tax-paying  qualifications,  was  narrowly  restricted. 
After  1870  the  Liberals  carried  on  a  persistent  campaign  in  behalf  of  a 
broader  electorate,  and  by  a  constitutional  amendment  of  1887  the 
franchise  was  extended  to  all  males  twenty-three  years  of  age  and 
over,  who  are  householders  paying  a  minimum  house-duty,  lodgers 
who  for  a  time  have  paid  a  minimum  rent,  or  who  are  possessed  of 
'"  signs  of  fitness  and  social  well-being."  The  provisions  relating  to 
householders  and  lodgers  alone  increased  the  electorate  at  a  stroke 
from  approximately  100,000  to  300,000.  The  precise  meaning  and 
application  of  the  phrase  "fitness  and  social  well-being"  were  left  to 
be  defined  by  law,  and  through  upwards  of  a  decade  political  con- 
toversy  in  Holland  centered  principally  about  this  question.  The 
coalition  Catholic-Conservative  ministry  of  1888-1891  refused  flatly 
to  sanction  the  enactment  of  any  sort  of  law  upon  the  subject.  In 
1893  the  Liberal  Minister  of  the  Interior,  Tak  van  Poortvliet,  brought 
forward  a  project  whereby  it  was  proposed  to  put  upon  the  qualifying 
phrase  an  interpretation  of  well-nigh  the  broadest  possible  character. 
A  man  was  to  be  regarded  as  fulfilling  the  educational  requirement  if 
he  were  able  to  write,  and  the  social  requirement  if  simply  he  were  not 
a  recipient  of  public  charity.  By  the  adoption  of  this  scheme  the  num- 
ber of  electors  would  have  been  raised  to  something  like  800,000,  and 
Holland  would  have  attained  a  reasonable  approximation  of  manhood 
suffrage.  The  Moderate  Liberals,  the  Conservatives,  and  most  of  the 

1  The  provincial  quotas  are  as  follows:  South  Holland,  10;  North  Holland,  9; 
North  Brabant  and  Gelderland,  6  each;  Friesland,  4;  Overyssel,  Groningen,  and 
Limberg,  3  each;  Zealand,  Utrecht,  and  Drenthe,  2  each.    Prior  to  the  constitutional 
revision  of  1848  members  of  the  upper  house  were  appointed  by  the  king. 

2  Art.  90.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  98. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  527 

Catholics  opposed  the  proposition,  and  the  elections  of  1894  proved 
the  supporters  of  the  van  Poortvliet  programme  to  be  in  the  minority. 
The  total  strength  of  the  "Takkians"  in  the  new  chamber  was  46,  of 
whom  35  were  Liberals;  that  of  the  "anti-Takkians"  was  54,  of  whom 
24  were  Catholics. 

580.  The  Electoral  Law  of  1896  and  the  Question  of  Electoral 
Reform. — In  the  newly  constituted  ministry  it  fell  to  Samuel  van 
Houten,  leader  of  a  radical  group  that  had  opposed  the  van  Poort- 
vliet project,  to  prepare  an  alternative  measure.  In  the  notable 
electoral  law  of  1896  the  compromise  proposals  of  van  Houten  were 
definitely  accepted,  and  they  constitute  the  essential  features  of  the 
electoral  system  at  the  present  day.  Under  this  arrangement  the 
members  of  the  lower  chamber  are  elected  in  one  hundred  single- 
member  districts  by  male  citizens  of  the  age  of  twenty-five  and  over, 
who  meet  any  one  of  the  following  qualifications:  (i)  payment  of  a 
direct  tax  of  at  least  one  florin;  (2)  payment  of  a  minimum  rental  as 
householders  or  lodgers;  (3)  proprietorship  or  rental  of  a  vessel  of  at 
least  twenty-four  tons;  (4)  the  earning  of  a  wage  or  salary  varying 
from  275  to  550  florins  a  year;  (5)  investment  of  one  hundred  florins 
in  government  bonds,  or  of  fifty  florins  in  a  savings  bank;  and  (6)  the 
passing  of  an  examination  required  for  entrance  upon  a  public  office 
or  upon  a  private  employment.  By  the  reform  of  1896  the  number  of 
voters  in  the  realm  was  increased  to  700,000. 

In  1905  there  was  created  a  royal  commission  of  seven  members  to 
which  was  assigned  the  task  of  considering  and  reporting  proposals 
relative  to  proportional  representation,  the  salaries  of  members,  and 
other  questions  of  constitutional  revision.  The  Government,  however, 
reserved  to  itself  specifically  the  right  to  bring  forward  proposals 
relating  to  the  actual  extension  of  the  franchise.  The  report  of  this 
commission,  submitted  late  in  1907,  recommended,  among  other 
things,  the  introduction  of  proportional  representation  and  (by  a  vote 
of  six  out  of  seven)  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  women.  These 
suggestions  failed  of  adoption,  but  late  in  1910  a  new  commission  was 
appointed,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Conservative  premier  Heems- 
kerk,  and  to  this  body  was  given  power  to  propose  changes  in  any 
portion  whatsoever  of  the  governmental  order.  The  successful  opera- 
tion of  proportional  representation  in  adjoining  countries,  especially 
Belgium  and  Sweden,  renders  it  probable  that  the  system  will  be 
adopted  ultimately  hi  Holland.  The  future  of  woman's  suffrage  is 
more  problematical.  Women  already  possess  the  right  to  vote  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  dike  associations  if  they  are  taxpayers  or  if  they 
own  property  adjoining  the  dikes,  and  in  June,  1908,  the  Lutheran 


528  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Synod  gave  women  the  right  to  vote  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  on  a  footing 
with  men.  Since  1894  there  has  been  a  National  Woman's  Suffrage 
Society,  to  which  was  added,  in  1906,  a  Woman's  Suffrage  League; 
and  women  are  freely  admitted  to  membership  in  the  political  clubs 
maintained  by  the  adherents  of  the  various  parties. 

Any  male  citizen  who  has  attained  his  thirtieth  year,  who  is  in  full 
possession  of  property,  and  who  has  not  been  disqualified  by  judicial 
sentence,  is  eligible  to  a  seat  in  the  popular  chamber.  By  constitu- 
tional provision,  members  are  allowed,  in  addition  to  travelling  ex- 
penses, a  salary  of  2,000  florins  a  year;  and,  under  law  of  May  4, 1889, 
members  of  the  upper  house  who  do  not  live  in  the  place  of  meeting 
receive  a  per  diem  of  ten  florins  during  the  continuance  of  each  session. 

681.  The  States-General:  Organization  and  Powers. — The  consti- 
tution requires  that  the  States-General  shall  assemble  at  least  once 
each  year  and  that  its  regular  annual  session  shall  be  opened  on  the 
third  Tuesday  in  September.  The  sovereign  may  convoke  an  ex- 
traordinary session  at  any  time;  but  regular  sessions  are  not  dependent 
upon  the  royal  summons.  The  crown  possesses  the  right  to  dissolve 
the  houses,  separately  or  simultaneously;  but  a  decree  of  dissolution 
must  contain  an  order  for  the  election  of  the  new  house,  or  houses, 
within  fourteen  days,  and  for  the  assembling  of  the  houses  within  two 
months.1  Except  in  the  event  of  a  dissolution,  a  regular  session  is 
required  to  extend  through  at  least  twenty  days;  but  upon  the  ex- 
piration of  the  twenty-day  period  the  sovereign  may  terminate  the 
sitting  whenever  in  his  judgment  "  the  interests  of  the  state  no  longer 
require  its  continuance."  2  The  president  of  the  upper  house  is  ap- 
pointed by  the  crown  from  among  the  members  for  the  period  of  one 
session.  The  corresponding  officer  of  the  lower  house  is  similarly 
appointed  from  a  list  of  three  members  submitted  by  the  chamber. 
Each  house  appoints,  from  non-members,  its  clerk  and  such  other 
officials  as  may  be  required;  each  examines  the  credentials  of  its  newly 
elected  members  and  renders  final  verdict  upon  their  validity;  and  each 
regulates  the  details  of  its  own  procedure.  Except  when  one-tenth 
of  the  members  of  a  chamber  request  the  closing  of  the  doors,  or  the 
president  deems  such  a  step  necessary,  sessions  are  public.  Neither 
house  may  take  action  upon  any  matter  unless  at  least  half  of  its  mem- 
bers are  present,  and  final  action  upon  all  propositions  is  taken  by  an 
absolute  majority  of  the  members  present.  A  portion  of  the  business 
of  the  States- General  is  transacted  in  joint  sessions  of  the  two  houses. 
In  joint  session  the  two  are  regarded  as  one  chamber,  under  the  pres- 

1  Art.  73.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  94. 

2  Art.  103.    Ibid.,  II.,  100. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  529 

idency  of  the  president  of  the  upper  house.  For  the  changing  of  the 
order  of  royal  succession  or  the  appointment  of  an  heir  to  the  throne, 
the  constitution  requires  that  the  membership  of  each  chamber  be 
doubled.  In  such  an  event  there  is  added  to  the  regular  members  of 
each  house  an  equal  number  of  extraordinary  members,  elected  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  regular  members.1 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  States-General  the  lower  chamber  enjoys 
a  distinct  preponderance.  The  upper  chamber,  indeed,  is  commonly 
regarded  as  constitutionally  the  weakest  body  of  its  kind  in  Europe. 
It  possesses  neither  the  power  to  initiate  legislation,  general  or  finan- 
cial, nor  power  to  amend  projects  of  law.  Any  measure  which  comes 
before  it  must  be  accepted  or  rejected  as  it  stands.  Bills  may  be 
originated  either  by  the  Government  or  by  members  of  the  lower 
chamber,  and  it  is  required  that  the  sovereign  shall  send  all  recom- 
mendations, whether  pertaining  to  laws  or  to  other  matters,  to  the 
lower  house,  in  a  written  message  or  by  committee.2  The  projects 
of  the  general  financial  laws  must  be  presented  annually  to  the 
lower  house  in  the  name  of  the  crown,  immediately  after  the  opening 
of  the  regular  session.  No  taxes  may  be  levied  save  by  law.  In  addi- 
tion to  its  powers  of  a  purely  legislative  character,  the  States-General 
is  authorized  to  investigate,  either  as  separate  chambers  or  in  joint 
session,  the  executive  conduct  of  public  affairs.3  Under  stipulated 
conditions,  the  States-General,  by  a  two-thirds  vote,  and  with  the 
assent  of  the  crown,  may  amend  the  constitution.4 

582.  Political  Parties:  Election  of  1903. — Since  the  middle  of  the 
nineteenth  century  political  preponderance  has  alternated  irregularly 
between  two  principal  party  groups.  One  of  these  is  the  Liberals, 
representative  especially  of  the  commercial  towns,  and  falling  into 
the  two  general  categories  of  Moderates  and  Progressives.  The  other 
is  the  Conservatives,  consisting  largely  of  orthodox  Protestants,  es- 
pecially the  Calvinistic  peasantry,  and  supported,  as  a  rule,  by  the 
Catholics.  In  more  recent  times  the  Socialists  have  made  their  ap- 
pearance as  a  distinct  political  element,  but  thus  far  they  have  cast 
in  their  lot  regularly  with  the  Liberals.  Between  1871  and  1888  the 
Liberals  were  in  power  continuously;  and,  after  a  brief  interval  covered 
by  a  Conservative-Catholic  ministry,  they  regained  control  and 
kept  it  throughout  the  decade  1891-1901.  In  1901  a  coalition  min- 
istry was  created,  under  the  premiership  of  the  Conservative  Dr. 
Kuyper.  This  lasted  until  1903. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  mentioned  the  lower  house  rejected 

1  Art.  83.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  96.       *  Art.  no.  Ibid.,  II.,  101. 
*  Art.  95.    Ibid.,  II.,  99.  4  See  p.  523. 


530  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

an  important  measure  relating  to  higher  education  upon  whose  enact- 
ment the  Kuyper  ministry  was  determined.  The  Chamber  was  dis- 
solved and  in  June  elections  were  held.  Prior  to  the  elections  the 
Chamber  contained  58  Ministerialists  and  42  anti-Ministerialists 
(Liberals  and  Socialists).  The  opposition  elements  were  far  from 
united.  The  Socialists  insisted  upon  an  immediate  amendment  of 
the  constitution  to  provide  for  universal  suffrage;  the  Progressive 
Liberals  favored  only  the  eventual  adoption  of  such  an  amendment; 
the  Moderate  Liberals  were  opposed  to  it  altogether.  None  the  less, 
the  result  of  the  elections  was  to  terminate  the  Conservative  majority 
and  to  replace  it  by  a  slender  but  indubitable  Liberal  majority  of  four. 
The  Conservatives  carried  48  seats;  the  Liberals  45;  and  the  Social- 
ists 7.  The  Kuyper  ministry  forthwith  resigned. 

683.  The  Political  Situation  Since  1909. — The  period  from  June, 
1905,  to  December,  1907,  was  covered  by  the  two  successive  Liberal 
ministries  of  Borgesius  and  De  Meester.  Each  was  essentially  color- 
less. Efforts  to  bring  about  an  extension  of  the  suffrage  failed,  and 
during  1907  the  Liberal  majority  virtually  disappeared.  The  upshot 
was  that,  February  8,  1908,  there  was  created  a  new  ministry,  under 
Dr.  Heemskerk,  whose  members  were  drawn  from  the  Conservatives. 
At  the  general  election  of  June  n,  1909,  the  Conservatives  recovered 
supremacy  completely.  Following  the  grouping  which  prevails  at 
the  present  day,  the  results  of  this  election  were  as  follows:  (i)  Anti- 
Revolutionaries  (largely  rural  Calvinists),  23  members;  (2)  Historic 
Christians,  12;  (3)  Roman  Catholics,  25 — a  total  Conservative  quota 
of  60;  (4)  Free  Liberals,  4;  Union  Liberals,  21;  Liberal  Democrats,  8; 
Socialists,  7 — a  total  Liberal  contingent  of  40.  Furthermore,  while 
the  Conservatives  were  compactly  organized,  the  Liberals  were 
divided  hopelessly  among  themselves  and  quite  unable  to  offer  sub- 
stantial resistance  to  their  opponents.  With  a  majority  of  20  in  the 
lower  chamber  and  of  19  in  the  upper,  with  a  popular  vote  in  excess  by 
80,000  of  that  of  the  Liberals,  and  with  a  ministry  in  office  which,  if 
not  brilliant,  was  at  least  popular,  the  Conservatives  came  off  from  the 
campaign  in  a  position  to  maintain  through  an  extended  period,  so 
far  as  may  be  foreseen,  their  control  of  public  affairs.  Quite  the  con- 
trary of  the  contemporary  situation  in  Belgium,  the  rifts  which  sep- 
arate the  various  Liberal  groups  tend  in  Holland  to  deepen,  and  the 
political  impotence  of  Liberalism  consequently  to  be  accentuated.1 

1  On  Dutch  political  parties  see  P.  Verschave,  La  Hollande  politique;  le  idle 
des  catholiques  nderlandais  depuis  dix  ans,  in  Le  Correspondant,  April  10,  1908; 
Les  elections  generates  et  la  situation  politique  aux  pays-bas:  Porganisation  de  la 
campagne  61ectorale,  ibid.,  Nov.  25,  1909;  and  La  Hollande  politique;  un  parti 
catholique  en  pays  protestant  (Paris,  1910). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  531 


IV.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

684.  Judicial  Principles. — The  constitution  guarantees  various 
fundamental  personal  rights,  including  those  of  petition,  assembly, 
free  speech,  and  equality  before  the  law  in  all  matters  pertaining  to 
the  protection  of  person  and  property.  It  likewise  undertakes  to 
guarantee  the  individual  against  partiality  and  arbitrariness  in  the 
administration  of  justice.  Except  in  unusual  cases,  prescribed  by  law, 
no  one  may  be  taken  into  custody  except  upon  a  warrant  issued  by  a 
judge,  stating  specifically  the  reason  for  arrest.  No  one  may  be  re- 
moved against  his  will  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  in  which 
he  has  a  right  to  be  tried.  General  confiscation  of  the  property  of  a 
person  adjudged  guilty  may  not  be  imposed  as  a  penalty  for  any 
offense.  Save  in  exceptional  cases,  specified  by  law,  or  when  in  the 
opinion  of  the  judge  public  order  and  morals  forbid,  the  sessions  of 
all  courts  are  required  to  be  public.  Judgments  must  be  pronounced 
in  public  session.  They  must  be  accompanied  by  a  statement  of  the 
considerations  upon  which  they  are  based,  and,  in  criminal  cases,  by 
a  citation  of  the  specific  provisions  of  law  upon  which  the  sentence 
is  founded.1 

686.  The  Courts. — Justice  is  administered  throughout  the  king- 
dom in  the  name  of  the  crown,  and  all  judicial  officers  are  appointed 
by  the  crown.  Within  the  constitution  provision  is  made  only  for  a 
supreme  tribunal  known  as  the  High  Court  (Hooge  Raad)  of  the 
Netherlands,  sitting  at  The  Hague.  Minor  courts  exist  by  virtue  of 
ordinary  law.  The  judges  of  the  High  Court,  five  in  number,  are 
appointed  by  the  crown  from  lists  prepared  by  the  lower  house  of  the 
States-General.  The  junctions  of  the  High  Court  are  of  large  impor- 
tance. On  appeal  from  inferior  tribunals  it  may  annul  any  judicial 
proceeding,  decree,  or  judgment  held  by  it  to  be  unwarranted  by  law. 
It  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  suits  are  properly  tried  and 
decided,  and  that  judicial  officials  comply  with  the  laws.  Inferior 
judges  are  appointed  normally  for  life,  but  under  conditions  prescribed 
by  law  they  may  be  dismissed  or  relieved  of  their  duties  by  decision 
of  the  High  Court.  Finally,  the  High  Court  constitutes  a  tribunal 
before  which,  upon  charges  brought  by  either  the  sovereign  or  the 
lower  chamber,  members  of  the  States-General,  heads  of  the  min- 
isterial departments,  governors-general,  members  of  the  Council  of 
State,  and  commissioners  of  the  crown  in  the  provinces,  may  be  pros- 
ecuted upon  charge  of  offenses  committed  in  office.  Such  prosecution 

1  Arts.  149-161.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  110-112. 


532  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

may  be  instituted  either  during  an  official's  tenure  of  office  or  after  his 
retirement.1 

Of  inferior  tribunals  there  are  three  grades.  At  the  bottom  are  the 
cantonal  courts,  106  in  number,  consisting  each  of  a  single  judge  and 
taking  cognizance  of  claims  under  200  guilders,  breaches  of  police 
regulations,  and  other  cases  of  a  minor  nature.  Next  are  the  district 
courts,  23  in  number,  each  consisting  of  three  judges  and  exercising 
within  the  arrondissement  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  more  weight. 
Still  above  the  district  tribunals  are  five  courts  of  appeal,  each  com- 
prising a  body  of  three  judges.  Trial  by  jury  is  unknown  in  Holland. 

586.  Local  Government:  the  Province. — The  constitution  of  the 
Netherlands  is  somewhat  peculiar  in  that  it  prescribes  at  length  not 
merely  the  form  and  character  of  the  national  government,  but  also 
the  arrangements  that  shall  prevail  respecting  the  governments  of  the 
provinces  and  the  communes  throughout  the  kingdom.  Of  provinces 
there  are  eleven;  of  communes,  1,123.  The  importance  of  the  province 
is  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  the  nation  has  sprung  from  a  pure  con- 
federation, the  original  autonomy  of  the  federated  provinces  having 
never  been  wholly  obliterated  under  the  present  centralized  regime. 
Each  province  has  its  own  representative  body,  or  "  provincial  estates," 
a  unicameral  assembly  whose  members  are  chosen  directly  for  six 
years  by  all  inhabitants  of  the  province  who  are  entitled  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  lower  house  of  the  States-General.  Half  of  the  mem- 
bers retire  every  three  years.  The  number  of  members  varies,  accord- 
ing to  the  population  of  the  province,  from  eighty  in  South  Holland 
to  thirty-five  in  Drenthe.  The  assembly  meets  at  least  twice  a  year. 
Its  powers  are  extensive,  although  it  can  perform  no  legislative  act 
without  the  assent  of  the  crown.  It  enacts  ordinances,  levies  taxes, 
prepares  and  submits  to  the  sovereign  an  annual  budget,  controls  in 
certain  respects  the  municipalities,' and  elects  those  members  of  the 
upper  branch  of  the  States-General  to  which  the  individual  province 
is  entitled. 

For  the  exercise  of  executive  authority  within  the  province  there 
are  two  agencies.  The  provincial  assembly  appoints  from  its  own  mem- 
bers a  committee  of  six,  known  as  the  "  deputed  states,"  to  which,  in 
accordance  with  conditions  fixed  by  law,  the  daily  administration  of 
affairs  is  intrusted.  Furthermore  the  sovereign  appoints  and  estab- 
lishes in  each  province  a  commissioner  who  is  charged  with  the  execu- 
tion of  royal  orders  and  with  a  general  supervision  of  the  acts  of  the 
local  authorities.  This  royal  commissioner  presides  over  the  delibera- 
tions of  both  the  provincial  estates  and  the  committee  of  six,  possessing 
1  Arts.  162-166.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  112-113. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  HOLLAND  533 

in  the  committee  the  power  also  of  voting.  He  is  distinctly  the  chief 
magistrate  of  the  province,  and  at  the  same  time  the  effective  tie  be- 
tween the  central  and  the  provincial  governments.1 

587.  Local  Government:  the  Commune. — In  all  essential  respects 
the  government  of  the  Dutch  communes  is  prescribed  by  the  national 
constitution,  with  the  result  that  that  government  is  characterized  by 
uniformity  no  less  thoroughgoing  than  is  the  communal  government  of 
France.  Within  each  commune  is  a  council  of  from  seven  to  forty-five 
members  elected  directly  by  the  people  of  the  commune  for  a  term  of 
six  years  under  franchise  arrangements  identical  with  those  obtaining 
in  the  election  of  members  of  the  provincial  estates,  save  that  no  one, 
although  otherwise  qualified  to  vote  for  communal  councillors,  may 
exercise  the  privilege  unless  he  contributes  a  minimum  amount  yearly 
to  the  communal  rates.  One-third  of  the  members  of  the  council 
retire  every  two  years.  The  council  meets  publicly  as  frequently  as 
business  requires.  It  enacts  by-laws,  levies  taxes,  supervises  education, 
and  represents  the  interests  of  the  commune,  if  occasion  arises,  before 
the  sovereign,  the  States-General,  and  the  provincial  estates.  All  of 
its  legislative  acts  are  liable  to  veto  by  the  crown,  and  the  municipal 
budget  requires  regularly  the  approval  of  the  committee  of  the  pro- 
vincial estates.  Executive  authority  within  the  commune  is  vested 
in  a  burgomaster,  or  mayor,  appointed  by  the  sovereign  for  a  term  of 
six  years,  and  a  board  of  two  to  six  wethouders,  or  aldermen,  elected 
by  and  from  the  council.  The  burgomaster  presides  in  the  council 
and,  as  a  representative  of  the  royal  authority,  may  suspend  for  a 
period  of  thirty  days  any  measure  enacted.2 

1  Arts.  127-141.    Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  II.,  105-108. 

2  Arts.  142-148.    Ibid.,  II.,  108-110. 


CHAPTER  XXDC 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM 

I.  THE  CONSTITUTION — THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

688.  The  Constitution :  Liberalism  and  Stability. — The  constitution 
of  the  kingdom  of  Belgium  was  framed,  consequent  upon  the  declara- 
tion of  Belgian  independence  October  4,  1830,  by  a  national  congress 
of  two  hundred  elected  delegates.  It  was  promulgated  February  7, 
1831,  and  July  21  of  the  same  year  the  first  independent  Belgian 
sovereign,  Leopold  I.,  took  oath  to  observe  and  maintain  it.  Circum- 
stances conspired  to  give  the  instrument  a  pronouncedly  liberal 
character.  Devised  in  the  midst  of  a  revolution  brought  on  principally 
by  the  autocratic  rule  of  King  William  I.,  it  is,  and  was  intended  to 
be,  uncommonly  explicit  in  its  definition  of  the  royal  prerogative. 
There  were  Belgians  in  1831,  indeed,  who  advocated  the  establishment 
of  a  republic.  Against  such  a  course  various  considerations  were  urged, 
and  with  effect;  but  the  monarchy  which  was  set  up,  owing  clearly  its 
existence  to  popular  suffrage,  is  of  the  strictly  limited,  constitutional 
type.  "All  powers,"  it  is  asserted  in  the  fundamental  law,  "emanate 
from  the  people."  1  The  principles  of  liberalism  are  the  more  in 
evidence  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
deliberately  accepted  as  models  the  French  instruments  of  1791  and 
1830  and  were  likewise  influenced  profoundly  by  their  admiration  for 
the  constitutional  system  of  Great  Britain. 

A  striking  testimony  to  the  thoroughness  with  which  the  work  was 
done,  and  to  the  advanced  character  of  the  governmental  system 
established,  is  the  fact  that  the  text  of  the  Belgian  fundamental  law 
endured  through  more  than  half  a  century  absolutely  unchanged^jind, 
fUf tllegrtfiat  whenlli  6Uf  own  generation  fhe  task  oramendmenTwas 
undertaken  not  e\ren  thejnost  ardent  feVlBioniblb  taied  lu  'iuajs.t  upon 
than  the  overhauling  of  the  arrangements  respecting  the  fran- 
Leopold!.  (1831-1865),  and  Leopold  II.  after  him  (1865-1909), 
frankly  recognized  the  co^jj^onal^basis  of  the  royaj^tejaure  and,  al- 
though conspicuously  active  in  the  management  of  public  affairs, 

1  Art.  25.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  130. 
534 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM 


535 


afforded  by  their  conduct  slight  occasion  for  popular  criticism  or 
disaffection.    Even  the  revolutionary  year  1848  passed  without  pro- 
ducing in  Belgium  more  than  a  mere  ripple  of  unrest.    In  1803  the,) 
constitution  was  amended  to  provide  for  mjiersamale  suffrage,  and  I 
in  1899  a  further  amendment  institutecfa 
representation.     Otherwise,  the  instrument 

as  itwasput  into  operation  in  1831.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that, 
in  Belgium  as  elsewhere,  the  written  constitution  does  not  by  any 
means  contain  the  whole  of  the  actually  operative  political  system. 
Numerous  aspects  of  parliamentarism,  and  of  other  well-established 
governmental  forms  ali6!~gifaT^ices,  depend  for  their  sanction  upon 
the  contentions^  rather  than  upon  th*e  law,  nt  the 
trjev_arenone  Tthe  less  reaT  and  enduring. 

689.  Content    and    Amendment.  —  The 
Belgium,  like  that  of  Holland,  is  comp 
prises  an  extended  foil  ftf  rights:  a 
of  the  national  pYpruriveT  iePT^a.tivpJLa.nri  judicial 


^written    constitution    of 
ve  in  scoe^    It  com- 


provisions, relating  to  finance  and  the  arm^;  and  an  enumeration  of 
the  prjndgies  underlying  the  provincial  and  co: 
tiojk  It  contains  a  total  of  139  articles,  of  whicET  eight,  being  tem- 
porary in  character,  are  inoperative.  The  process  of  amendment 
is  identical  with  that  which  prevails  in  Holland.  Upon  declara- 
tion bv  the  legislative  chambers  to  the  effect  that  as] 

the  chambers  are  ibsa  facto  dissolv 
elected"" 


s 


desirale, 

^KS^MMH^M^B 

thereuon 


d- 
the 


>rove  the  proposition  by  a  two- 

*       »j.  '«      i     i*     **S 

it  is  declared 


-  and  the  sov 
aopted; 

xArt.  131.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  146.  The  text  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  Belgium,  in  English  translation,  is  printed  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions, 
I.,  126-148,  and  in  the  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  May,  1896,  Supplement  (translation  by  J.  M.  Vincent).  French  texts  of 
the  constitution  and  of  important  laws  will  be  found  in  F.  Larder,  Code  politique 
et  administratif  de  la  Belgique  (ad  ed.,  Brussels,  1893).  The  standard  commen- 
tary is  J.  J.  Thonissen,  La  constitution  beige  ^d  ed.,  Brussels,  1879).  Works 
of  value  relating  to,  the  amendments  of  1893-1894  are  C.  Thiebault  et  A.  Henry, 
Commentaire  legislatif  des  articles  revises  de  la  constitution  beige  (Brussels, 
1894),  and  Beltjens,  La  constitution  beige  revisee  (Lie"ge,  1895).  The  best  trea- 
tises on  the  Belgian  constitutional  system  are  P.  Errera,  Das  Staatsrecht  des 
Konigreichs  Belgien  (Tubingen,  1909),  and  Trait6  de  droit  public  beige:  droit 
constitutionnel,  droit  administratif  (Paris,  1908),  and  O.  Orban,  Le  droit  const!  tu- 
tionnel  de  la  Belgique,  3  vols.  (Liege,  1906-1911).  An  older  but  excellent  work  is 
A.  Giron,  La  droit  public  de  la  Belgique  (Brussels,  1884).  A  convenient  elementary 
book  on  the  subject  is  F.  Masson  et  C.  Wiliquet,  Manuel  de  droit  constitutionnel 
(yth  ed.,  Brussels,  1904).  A  useful  volume  is  E.  Flandin,  Institutions  politiques 
de  1'Europe  contemporaine  (2d  ed.,  Paris,  1907),  I. 


536  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

690.  The  Crown. — Kingship  in  Belgium  is  hereditary  in  the  direct 
x-  male  line  in  the  order  of  primogeniture.    In  default  of  male  descend- 
ants, the  king,  with  the  consent  of  the  legislative  chambers,  may  name 
his  successor.1   A  king  or  heir  to  the  throne  attains  his  majority  at  the 
age  of  eighteen.    In  the  event  of  a  minority,  or  of  the  incapacity  of  the 
sovereign,  the  two  houses  are  required  to  meet  in  a  single  assembly  for 
the  purpose  of  making  provision  for  a  regency.    The  powers  of  regent 
may  not  be  conferred  upon  two  or  more  persons  jointly,  and  during 
the  continuance  of  a  regency  no  changes  may  be  made  in  the  con- 
stitution.2   If  by  chance  the  throne  should  fall  wholly  vacant,  the 
choice  of  a  sovereign  would  devolve  upon  the  legislative  chambers, 
specially  re-elected  for  the  purpose,  and  deliberating  in  joint  session. 
The  civil  list  of  the  crown  is  fixed  at  the  beginning  of  a  reign.    That  of 
Leopold  II.,  as  established  by  law  of  December  25, 1865,  was  3,300,000 
francs,  and  that  of  the  present  sovereign,  Albert  I.,  is  the  same. 

691.  The  Ministers  and  the  Parliamentary  System. — The  Council 
,  /^i  Ministers  consists  of  ten  heads  of  py^fjitive  Hpparfjpent*-    These, 

together  with  a  va.ria.h)e  pumper  ^fl  F"ni'^grs  without  portfolio,  com- 
\s''  prise  the  Qo^m^iLoLSiate,  an  advisory  bo{iv  conTened  bv  the  crown  as 
s occasion  requires.  All  ^ijlfctorfi  flrp  ^PP0"1^:  directly  or  indirectly, 
and  all  may  be  olismissed,  by  the  k,jng.  All  must  be  Belgian  citizens, 
and  no  member  of  the  royal  family  may  be  tendered  an  appointment. 
Ministers  are  all  but  invariably  members  of  one  or  the  other* of  the 
legislative  houses,  principally  of  the  Hpyse,  of  Representatives.3 
Whether  members  or  not,  they  are  privileged  to  attend  all  sessions  and 
to  be  hearcUtt  theirjownjequest.  The  houses,  indeed,  possess  the  right 
to  demand  their  attendance.  But  no  ministerjnav  voJ:e.  save_m_a 
house  oTwficlTHeis  a  member.4 

Belgium  is  one  oFtne  few  continental  states  in  which  the  parlia- 
mentary system  is  thoroughly  operative.  At  no  point  is  the  constitu- 
tion more  explicit  than  in  its  stipulation  of  the  responsibility  of  min- 
isters. Not  only  is  it  declared  that  the  king's  ministers  are  responsible ; 
•it  is  stipulated  that  "no  decree  of  the  king  shall  take  effect  unless  it  is 
countersigned  by  a  minister,  who,  by  that  act  alone,  renders  himself 

1  This  privilege  was  conferred  by  an  amendment^  Art.  61)  adopted  September  7, 

1893- 

2  Arts.  60,  70-85.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  136,  138-139. 

3  The  minister  of  war,  regularly  an  active  military  official,  has  been  usually  not 
a  legislative  member.    Aside  from  this  one  post,  however,  the  custom  of  selecting 
ministers  exclusively  from  the  chambers  has  been  followed  almost  as  rigorously  in 
Belgium  as  in  Great  Britain.    And  so  largely  are  the  ministers  taken  from  the  lower 
house  that  the  Senate  not  infrequently  has  no  representative  at  all  in  the  cabinet. 

4  Arts.  86-91.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  139-140. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  537 

responsible  for  it";  also  that  "in  no  case  shall  the  verbal  or  written 
order  of  the  king  relieve  a  minister  of  responsibility."  The  House 
of  Representatives  is  vested  with  the  right  to  accuse  ministers  and  to  i 
arraign  them  before  the  Court  of  Cassation;  and  the  king  may  not 
pardon  a  minister  who  has  been  sentenced  by  this  tribunal,  save  upon 
request  of  one  of  the  two  legislative  chambers.  A  ministry  which 
finds  that  it  cannot  command  the  support  of  a  majority  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  has  the  right  to  determine  upon  the  dissolution  of 
either  of  the  houses,  or  of  both.  If  after  a  general  election  there  is 
still  lack  of  harmony,  the  ministry,  as  would  be  the  procedure  in  a 
similar  situation  in  Great  Britain,  retires  from  office,  the  sovereign 
calls  upon  an  opposition  party  leader  to  assume  the  premiership  and  to 
form  a  cabinet,  and  the  remainder  of  the  ministers  are  selected  from 
the  dominant  parties  by  this  official,  in  consultation  with  the  king. 
By  reason  of  the  multiplicity  of  party  groups  in  Belgium,  the  king  is 
apt  to  be  allowed  somewhat  wider  latitude  in  the  choice  of  a  premier 
than  is  possible  in  Great  Britain.2 

692.  The  Exercise  of  Executive  Powers. — The  powers  of  the  execu- 
tive, exercised  nominally  by  the  king,  but  actually  by  the  ministry, 
are  closely  defined  in  the  constitution;  and  there  is  the  stipulation, 
unusual  in  European  constitutions,  that  the  king  shall  possess  no 
powers  other  than  thoseiwhich  the  constitution,  and  the  special  laws 
enacted  under  the  constitution,  confer  explicitly  upon  him.3  Unddr  the 
conditions  that  have  been  explained,  the  king  appoints  all  officials 
who  are  attached  to  the  general  administrative  and  foreign  services, 
but  other  officials  only  in  so  far  as  is  expressly  authorized  by  law.  He 
commands  the  forces  by  land  and  sea,  declares  war,  and  concludes 
peace.  He  negotiates  treaties,  with  the  limitation  that  treaties  of 
commerce  and  treaties  which  impose  a  burden  upon  the  state,  or  place 
under  obligation  individual  Belgian  citizens,  take  effect  only  after 
receiving  the  approval  of  the  two  houses;  and  with  the  further  condi- 
-~.  tion  that  no  cession,  exchange,  or  acquisition  of  territory  may  be 
/J  carried  through  save  by  warrant  of  a  law.  The  king  promulgates  all  ^ 
legislative  measures,  and  he  is  authorized  tolssue  all  regulations  and 
decrees'  necessary  for  the  execution  of  the  laws.  In  theory  he  pos- 
sesses the  power  of  the  veto,  but  in  the  Belgian,  as  in  parliamentary 
governments  generally,  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  actual  exercise  of  * 
this  power.  The  king  convokes,  prorogues,  and  dissolves  the  cham-  * 

1  Arts.  63-64,  89.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  137,  140. 

2  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  L,  210-230;  O.  Kerchove  de  Denterghem,  De  la  respon- 
sabilit6  des  ministres  dans  le  droit  public  beige  (Paris,  1867). 

8  Art.  78.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  138. 


538  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

bers;  thpugh  the  provisions  of  the  constitution  relating  to  the  legisla- 
tive sessions  are  so  explicit  that  the  crown  is  left  small  discretion  in 
the  matter.  The  king,  finally,  is  authorized  to  remit  or  to  reduce  the 
penalties  imposed  by  the  tribunals  of  justice,  to  coin  money,  to  confer 
titles  of  nobility  (which  must  be  purely  honorary),  and  to  bestow 
military  orders  in  accordance  with  provisions  of  law.1 

II.  THE  HOUSES  OF  PARLIAMENT — THE  ELECTORAL  SYSTEM 

693.  The  Senate. — The  Belgian  parliament  consists  of  two  houses, 
both  elective  and  both  representative  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The 
upper  house,  or  Senate,  is  composed  of  112  members,  chosen  for  a  term 
of  eight  years.  With  respect  to  the  method  of  their  election,  the  mem- 
bers fall  into  two  categories.  Under  constitutional  provision,  as 
amended  by  law  of  September  7,  1893,  a  number  of  senators  equal  to 
of  members  of  tlie^Houseof^Representatives  is 
be  voters,  in  prop€U^Je^Jolriej2Opilation  of  the 
several  provinces.  The  electorate  which  returns  theSe^senators  is 
identical  with  that  which  returns  the  deputies,  and  by  law  of  December 
29,  1899,  the  principle  of  proportional  representation,  as  applied  in 

^  elections  of  the  lower  chamber,  is  applied  to  senatorial  elections  within 
each  province.  A  second  group  of  members  consists  of  those  elected 

v  by  the  provincial  councils,  to  the  number  of  two  for  each  province  hav- 
ing fewer  than  500,000  inhabitants,  of  three  for  each  province  having 
from  500,000  to  1,000,000  inhabitants,  and  of  four  for  each  province 
having  more  than  1,000,000  inhabitants.  The  proportion  of  senators 

>/  elected  directly  by  the  people  is  approximately  three-fourths,  being  at 
present  76  to  26.  Prior  to  the  amendment  of  1893  all  members  of  the 
Senate  were  chosen  by  the  same  electorate  which  chose  the  members 
of  the  lower  chamber.  Inasmuch  as  only  payers  of  direct  taxes  to  the 
amount  of  2,000  francs  a  year  were  eligible  as  senators,  the  upper  house 

>i  represented  almost  exclusively  the  interests  of  wealth.  By  vesting  in 
the  provincial  councils  the  choice  of  a  portion  of  the  senators,  who 
should  be  eligible  regardless  of  tax-paying  qualifications,  it  was  hoped 
to  impart  to  the  Senate  a  more  broadly  representative  character. 
At  the  same  time  the  tax  qualification  for  popularly  elected  members 
was  reduced  by  a  third.  It  may  be  noted  that  there  is  a  possibility  of  a 
small  non-elective  element  in  the  Senate.  According  to  the  terms  of 
the  constitution,  the  sons  of  the  king,  or  if  there  be  none,  the  Belgian 
princes  of  the  branch  of  the  royal  family  designated  to  succeed  to 
the  throne,  shall  be  by  right  senators  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  though 

1  Arts.  66-67.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  137-138. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  539 

without  deliberative  vote  until  the  age  of  twenty-five.1    Prior  to  his  ac- 
cession to  the  throne,  in  1909,  the  present  sovereign  Albert  I.,  nephew 
and  heir-presumptive  of  Leopold  II.,  was  entitled  to  a  senatorial  seat.  - 
There  is  at  present  no  representative  of  royalty  who  is  eligible. 

All  elective  senators  must  be  Belgian  citizens  and  Belgian  residents, 
\at  least  forty  years  of  age,  and  in  the  unrestricted  enjoyment  of  civil 
and  political  rights.  Senators  elected  by  the  provincial  councils  are  '<• 
subject  to  no  property  qualifications,2  but  those  elected  directly  by  the 
people  must  be  drawn  from  either  payers  of  as  much  as  1,200  francs 
of  direct  national  taxes  or  proprietors  or  lessees  of  Belgian  real  estate 
of  an  assessed  income  of  at  least  12,000  francs.  In  provinces,  however, 
where  the  number  of  eligible  persons  falls  short  of  the  proportion  of 
one  for  every  5,000  inhabitants,  the  list  is  completed  by  the  addition 
of  such  a  number  of  the  heaviest  tax-payers  of  the  province  as  may  be 
necessary  to  establish  this  proportion.3  Save  passes  on  the  national  * 
railways,  senators  receive  no  salary  or  other  emolument. 

594.  The  House  of  Representatives:  Earlier  Electoral  Arrangements. 
—The  lower  legislative  chamber  consists  of  deputies  elected  directly 
by  the  voters  of  the  kingdom.  The  number  of  seats  is  determined  by 
law,  under  the  general  provision  that  it  may  not  exceed  the  proportion 
of  one  for  40,000  inhabitants.  Prior  to  1899  it  was  152;  to-day  it  is 
1 86.  The  term  is  four  years.  Half  of  the  membership  retires  every 
two  years,  though  in  the  event  of  a  dissolution  the  house  is  entirely 
renewed.^  The  qualifications  which  the  constitution  requires  of  dep- 
uties are  those  of  citizenship,  residence  in  Belgium,  attainment  of 
the  age  of  twenty^five,  and  possession  of  civil  and  political  rights. 
Deputies  receive  an  honorarium  of  4,000  francs  a  year,  together  with  ^ 
free  transportation  upon  all  state  and  concessionary  railways  between 
the  places  of  their  respective  residences  and  Brussels,  or  any  other 
city  in  which  a  session  may  be  held. 

The  Belgian  electoral  system  at  the  present  day  is  noteworthy  by  v 
reason  of  three  facts:  (i)  it  is  based  upon  the  principle  of  universal 
manhood  suffrage;  (2)  it  embraces  a  scheme  of  plural  voting;  and  (3) 
H  provides"  iot  tffe  proportional  representation  of  parties!  Under  the 
original  constitution  of  1831  the  Irancnise,  while  not  illiberal  for  the 
time,  was  restricted  by  property  qualifications  of  a  somewhat  sweeping 
character.  Deputies  were  elected  by  those  citizens  only  who  paid 
yearly  a  direct  tax  varying  in  amount,  but  in  no  instance  of  less  than 

1  Art.  58.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  135. 

2  They  may  not  be,  and  may  not  have  been  within  two  years  preceding  then- 
election,  members  of  the  assembly  which  returns  them. 

8  Art.  56.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  135. 
«  This  is  true  also  of  the  Senate. 


540  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROP  2 

twenty  florins.  In  1848  there  was  enacted  a  series  of  electoral  laws 
whereby  the  property  qualification  was  reduced  to  a  uniform  level  of 
twenty  florins  and  the  number  of  voters  was  virtually  doubled.  With 
this  arrangement  the  Liberals  were  by  no  means  satisfied,  and  agitation 
in  behalf  of  a  broader  electorate  was  steadily  maintained.  As  early 
as  1865  the  Liberal  demands  were  actively  re-enforced  by  those  of 
organizations  of  workingmen,  and  in  1870  the  Catholic  ministry 
found  itself  obliged  to  sanction  a  considerable  extension  of  the  fran- 
chise in  elections  within  the  provinces  and  the  communes.  After  1880 
the  brunt  of  the  electoral  propaganda  was  borne  by  the  Socialists,  and 
the  campaign  for  constitutional  revision  was  directed  almost  solely 
against  the  47th  article  of  the  fundamental  law,  in  which  was  con- 
tained the  original  stipulation  respecting  the  franchise.  Since  1830 
the  population  of  Belgium  had  all  but  doubled,  and  there  had  been  in 
the  country  an  enormous  increase  of  popular  intelligence  and  of  eco- 
nomic prosperity.  That  in  a  population  of  6,000,000  (in  1890)  there 
should  be  an  electorate  of  but  135,000  was  a  sufficiently  obvious 
anomaly.  The  broadly  democratic  system  by  which  members  of 
the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies  and  of  the  German  Reichstag 
were  elected  was  proclaimed  by  the  revisionists  to  be  the  ideal  which 
it  was  hoped  to  realize  in  Belgium. 

696.  The  Electoral  Reform  Act  of  1893.— In  1890  the  Catholic 
ministry,  recognizing  in  part  the  justice  of  the  demand,  and  preferring, 
if  there  were  to  be  revision,  to  carry  it  through,  rather  than  to  incur 
the  risk  of  having  it  carried  through  by  a  radical  cabinet,  yielded  to 
the  pressure  and  consented  to  the  formal  consideration  of  the  electoral 
question  upon  the  floors  of  the  two  chambers.  Three  years  of  inter- 
mittent, but  animated,  discussion  ensued.  At  length,  in  May,  1892, 
the  chambers  were  able  to  agree  upon  the  primary  proposition  that 
some  sort  of  revision  was  necessary.  Then'  came  the  dissolution  which 
is  required  by  the  constitution  in  such  a  case,  followed  by  a  general 
election.  The  newly  chosen  chambers,  which  for  the  purpose  in  hand 
comprised  virtually  a  constituent  convention,  entered  upon  their  task 
later  in  the  same  year.  In  both  the  Catholics  maintained  a  majority, 
but  by  reason  of  the  requirement  of  a  two-thirds  vote  for  the  adoption 
of  a  constitutional  amendment,  they  were  none  the  less  obliged  to  rely 
upon  the  Liberals  for  a  certain  amount  of  support.  In  the  scheme  of  re- 
vision which  was  finally  adopted  all  parties  had  some  substantial  share. 

No  fewer  than  fourteen  distinct  programmes  of  reform  were  laid 
before  the  chambers.1  The  Conservatives,  in  general,  desired  the 

1  It  will  be  remembered  that  for  the  purpose  of  considering  constitutional  amend- 
ments the  chambers  meet  in  joint  session. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  541 

introduction  of  a  system  based  upon  occupation  combined  with  the 
payment  of  taxes;  the  majority  of  the  Liberals  sought  to  secure  special 
recognition  for  electors  of  approved  capacity — in  brief,  an  educational 
qualification;  the  Radicals  inside,  and  the  Socialists  outside,  Parlia- 
ment carried  on  a  relentless  propaganda  in  behalf  of  universal,  direct, 
and  equal  suffrage.  The  rejection  in  committee  (April,  1893)  of  a 
plan  of  universal  suffrage  occasioned  popular  demonstrations  which 
required  the  calling  out  of  the  military,  and  when  it  was  proposed  to 
stop  with  a  reduction  of  the  age  limit  for  voters  there  were  threats  of 
a  universal  industrial  strike.  In  the  end  all  elements  wisely  receded 
from  their  extreme  demands  and  it  was  found  possible  to  effect  agree- 
ment upon  a  compromise.  A  Catholic  deputy — Albert  Nyssens,  pro- 
fessor at  the  University  of  Louvain — came  forward  with  a  scheme  for 
manhood  suffrage,  safeguarded  by  the  plural  vote,  and  September  3,  - 
1893,  the  plan  was  adopted.1  ^ 

696.  The  Franchise  To-day. — By  the  terms  of  the  law  of  1893, 
one  vote  is  allotted  to  every  male  Belgian  citizen  who  has  attained  the  / 
age  of  twenty-five  years,  who  is  in  unrestricted  eniovment  of  jus 
civil  and  political  rights,  and  who  has  been  resident  at  least  one  year 
in  a  given  commung.  There  is  nothing  whatsoever  in  the  nature  of 
either  an  educational  or  a  property  qualification.  Having  conferred, 
however,  upon  the  mass  of  male  citizens  the  right  to  vote,  the  law 
proceeds  to  define  the  conditions  under  which  a  citizen  may  be  en- 
titled to  two  votes,  or  even  three.  One  supplementary  vote  is  rnn-  4 


i  erred  upon  (i)  every  male  citizen  over  t.hij-t.  ^ 

or  a  widower,  with  legitimate  offspring,  and  paying  to  the  state  as  a 
householder  a  tax"oi  not  less  than  nve  francs,  unless  exempfrby  reason 
of  his  profession,  and  (2)  every  male  citizen  over  twenty-five  years  of 
agejowninq  real  estate  to  the  assessed  va.1  IIP  of  ^)QnnfrartrgJ  Or  pos- 
sessing income  from  land  corresponding  to  such  valuation,  or  who 
for  two  years  has  derived  a  minimum  interest  return  of  one  hundred 
francs  a  year  from  Belgian  funds,  in  the  form  of  either  government 
bonds  or  obligations  of  the  Belgian  government  savings-bank.  Two_ 
supplementary  votes  are_cor>fprrpd  upon  citizens  over  twenty-five 
years^ot_a^e  who  (i)  hold  a  diploma  from  stf\  institution  oi_lMgher  V 
learning,  or  an  indorsed  certificate  testifying  to  the  completion  of  a 
course  of  secondary  education  of  the  higher  grade;  or  (2)  occupy  or 
have  occupied  a  public  office,  hold  or  have  held  a  position,  prac- 
tice or  have  practiced  a  protession,  whicn  presupposes  the  knowf- 
edge  imparted  in  secondary  instruction  of  the  higher  grade-^such 

1  The  Nyssens  scheme  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Belgian  people  through 
the  medium  of  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Le  suffrage  universel  tempere"." 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

offices,  positions,  and  professions  to  be  defined  fropi  time  to  time  by 
law.1 

What,  therefore,  the  law  of  1893  does  is,  broadly,  to  confer  upon 
every  male  citizen  one  vote  and  to  specify  three  principal  conditions 
under  which  this  basal  voting  power  may  be  augmented.  Asjfrp  .bead 
of  a  family,  the  citizen's  suffrage  may  be  doubled.  By  reason  of  his 
possession  of  property  or  of  capital,  it  likewise  may  be  doubled.  On 
the  basis  of  a  not  unattainable  educational  gyjalifica.^^  it  may  be 
tripled.  Under  no  circumstances  may  an  individual  be  entitled  to 
more  than  three  votes.  The  plural  vote  of  Belgium  differs,  therefore, 
from  that  of  Great  Britain,  not  only  in  that  it  is  based  upon  a  variety 
of  qualifications  of  which  property  ownership  is  but  one,  but  also  in 
that  there  is  fixed  an  absolute  and  reasonably  low  maximum  of  votes. 
It  is  of  interest  further  to  observe  that  voting  is  declared  by  the 
Belgian  constitution  to  be  obligatory.  Failure  to  appear  at  the  polls, 
without  adequate  excuse  made  to  the  election  officer,  is  a  misdemeanor, 
punishable  by  law.  The  citizen  may,  if  he  likes,' evade  the  law  by 
depositing  a  blank  ballot.  But  he  must  deposit  a  ballot  of  some  sort.2 

III.  PARTIES  AND  ELECTORAL  REFORM  SINCE  1894 — PARLIAMENTARY 

PROCEDURE 

597.  The   Adoption   of  Proportional  Representation,    1899. — The 

first  election  held  under  the  law  of  1893,  that  of  October  14,  1894, 
demonstrated  that  by  that  measure  the  number  of  electors  had 
been  multiplied  almqffet  exactly  by  ten.  The  total  number  of  voters 
was  now  1,370,000;  the  number  of  votes  cast  was  2,111,000.  Con- 
trary to  general  expectation,  the  election  gave  the  Catholics  an  over- 
whelming majority  in  the  lower  chamber.  They  obtained  105  seats, 
the  Socialists  2^  and  the  Liberals  onlyj£.  The  elections  of  1896  and 

1  Art.  47.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  132-133. 

2  On  the  earlier  aspects  of  Belgian  electoral  reform  see  J.  Van  den  Heuvel,  De  la 
revision  de  la  constitution  (Brussels,  1892);  L.  Arnaud,  La  revision  beige,  1890-1893 
(Paris  and  Brussels,  1894);  La  reforme  electorale  en  Belgique,  in  Annales  de  rfccole 
Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July,  1894;  E.  Van  der  Smissen,  L'fitat  actuel  des 
partis  politiques  en  Belgique,  ibid.,  Sept.,  1898.    An  important  work  by  a  leading 
socialist  and  a  deputy  from  Brussels  is  L.  Bertrand,  Histoire  de  la  democratic  et  du 
socialisme  en  Belgique  depuis  1830,  2  vols.  (Brussels  and  Paris,  1906-1907).    Men- 
tion may  be  made  also  of  E.  Vandervelde  et  J.  Destree,  Le  socialisme  en  Belgique 
(2d  ed.,  Paris,  1903)  and  the  older  work  of  E.  de  Laveleye,  Le  parti  clerical  en 
Belgique  (Brussels,  1874).    A  careful  study  is  J.  Barthelemy,  L'organisation  du  suf- 
rage  et  rexp6rience  beige  (Paris,  1912).    In  1910-1911  the  number  of  parliamentary 
electors  was  1,697,619,  of  whom  993,070  had  one  vote,  395,866  had  two  votes,  and 
308,683  had  three  votes. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  543 

1898  gave  the  Catholics  a  still  more  pronounced  preponderance.  At 
the  beginning  of  1899  the  parties  of  the  opposition  could  muster  in  the 
lower  house  only  forty  votes  and  in  the  upper  only  thirty-one.  The 
Liberal  party  was  threatened  with  extinction.  Its  popular  strength, 
however,  was  still  considerable,  and  from  both  Liberals  and  So- 
cialists there  arose  an  insistent  demand  for  the  adoption  of  a  scheme 
whereby  the  various  parties  should  be  accorded  seats  in  the  law-making 
bodies  in  proportion  to  their  popular  vote. 

The  idea  of  proportional  representation  was  not  at  this  time  in 
Belgium  a  new  one.  It  had  been  formulated  and  defended  in  the 
lower  chamber  as  early  as  1866.  Since  1881  there  had  been  main- 
tained a  national  reform  organization  whose  purpose  was  in  part  to 
propagate  it;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  at  the  time  of  the  revision 
of  1893  the  ministry,  led  by  the  premier  Beernaert,  had  advocated  its 
adoption.1  In  1895  the  principle  was  introduced  in  a  statute  relating 
to  communal  elections.  Following  a  prolonged  contest,  which  in- 
volved the  retirement  of  two  premiers,  a  bill  extending  the  plan  to 
parliamentary  elections  was  pressed  upon  the  somewhatj..di'vided 
Catholic  forces  and,  December  29,  1899,  was  enacted  into  la-vJU^er 
the  provisions  of  this  measujfecfepufies  and  the  popularly  elected 
senators  continue  to  be  chosen  within-the  arrondissement  by  scrutin 
de  liste.  Within  each  arrondissement  the  seats  to  be  filk<3.  are  dis- 
tributed among  the  parties  in  proportion  to  the  party  strength  as 
revealed  at  the  poll^  the  allotment  taking  place  in  accordance  with 
the  list  system'tormulated  by  Victor  d'Hondt,  of  the  University  of 
Ghent.  The  number  of  deputies  elected  in  an  arrondissement  varies 
from  three  to  twenty-one.  When  an  elector  appears  at  the  polls  he 
presents  his  official  "summons"  to  vote  and  receives  from  the  pre- 
siding officer  one,  two,  or  three  ballot  papers  according  to  the  number 
of  votes  to  which  he  is  entitled.  He  takes  these  papeVs  to  a  private 
compartment,  marks  them,  places  them  in  the  ballot^DOx,  and  has 
returned  to  him  his  letter  of  summons  stamped  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  that  he  has  fulfilled  the  obligation  imposed  upon  him  by  law. 
The  candidates  of  the  various  parties  are  presented  in  lists,  and  the 
task  of  the  elector  is  merely  to  indicate  his  approval  of  one  list  for  each 
of  the  votes  to  which  he  is  entitled.  This  he  does  by  pencilling  white 
spots  contained  in  the  black  squares  at  the  head  of  the  lists  or  against 
the  names  of  individual  candidates.  He  may  pencil  only  the  spot 

1  Another  interesting  proposal  in  1893  was  that  at  the  discretion  of  the  crown  a 
legislative  measure  might  be  submitted  to  direct  popular  vote.  By  reason  of  the 
fear  that  such  a  scheme  would  vest  in  the  crown  an  excess  of  power  the  experiment 
was  not  tried. 


544  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

at  the  head  of  a  list,  thereby  approving  the  order  in  which  the  can- 
didates have  been  arranged  by  the  party  managers;  or,  by  marking 
spaces  opposite  names  of  candidates,  he  may  indicate  his  preference 
for  a  different  order. 

698.  How  Seats  Are  Allotted.  —  The  process  of  the  apportionment  of 
seats  may  be  illustrated  by  a  hypothetical  case.    Let  it  be  assumed 
that  within  a  given  arrondissement  four  lists  of  parliamentary  can- 
didates have  been  presented  and  that  at  the  polls  an  aggregate  vote  of 
33,000  is  distributed  as  follows:  Catholics,  16,000;  Liberals,  9,000; 
Socialists,  4,500;  and  Christian  Democrats,  3,500.    Let  it  be  assumed, 
further,  that  the  arrondissement  is  entitled  to  eight  seats.    The  total 
number  of  votes  for  each  list  is  divided  successively  by  the  numbers 
i,  2,  3,  4,  etc.,  and  the  results  are  arrayed  thus: 

Christian 
Catholic  Liberal          Socialist         Democrat 

List1  List  List  List 

Divided  by  i  ........       16,000  9,000  4,500  3,5oo 

Divided  by  2  ........        8,000  4,5oo  2,250  i,75o 

Divided  by  3  ........        5,333  3>ooo  1,500  1,166 

Divided  by  4  ........        4,000  2,250  1,125  875 

Divided  by  5  ........        3,200  1,800  900  700 

The  eight  highest  numbers  (eight  being  the  number  of  seats  to  be 
filled)  are  then  arranged  in  order  of  magnitude  as  follows: 

16,000 

9,000 
8,000 

5,333 
4,5oo 
4,5oo 
4,000 


The  lowest  of  these  numbers,  3,500,  becomes  the  common  divisor, 
or  the  "electoral  quotient."  The  number  of  votes  cast  for  each  list 
is  divided  by  this  quotient,  and  the  resulting  numbers  (fractions  being 
disregarded)  indicate  the  quota  of  seats  to  which  each  of  the  parties 
is  entitled.  In  the  case  in  hand  the  results  would  be  : 

16,000  divided  by  3,500=4  Catholic  seats 
9,000  divided  by  3,500=  2  Liberal  seats 
4,500  divided  by  3,500=1  Socialist  seat 
3,500  divided  by  3,500=1  Christian  Democrat  seat 

1  In  point  of  fact,  the  lists  as  published  and  as  placed  before  the  voter  are  in- 
dicated merely  by  number. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  545 

699.  The  Making  up  of  the  Lists. — Lists  of  candidates  are  made  up, , 
and  the  order  in  which  the  names  of  candidates  appear  is  determined, 
by  the  local  organizations  of  the  respective  parties.  In  order  to  be 
presented  to  the  electorate  a  list  must  have  the  previously  expressed 
support  of  at  least  one  hundred  electors.  A  candidate  may  stand  as  an 
independent,  and  his  name  will  appear  in  a  separate  "list,"  providing 
his  candidacy  meets  the  condition  that  has  been  mentioned;  and  it  is 
within  the  right  of  any  organization  or  group,  political  or  non-political, 
to  place  before  the  electorate  a  list.  The  power  of  the  organization 
responsible  for  the  presentation  of  a  list  to  fix  the  order  of  candidates' 
names  is  not  a  necessary  feature  of  the  proportional  system  and  it  has 
been  the  object  of  much  criticism,  but  it  is  not  clear  that  serious  abuse 
has  arisen  from  it.  Candidates  whose  names  stand  near  the  top  of  the 
list  are,  of  course,  more  likely  to  be  elected  than  those  whose  names 
appear  further  down,  for,  under  the  prevailing  rules,  all  votes  indicated 
in  the  space  at  the  head  of  a  list  form  a  pool  from  which  the  candidates 
on  the  list  draw  hi  succession  as  many  votes  as  may  be  necessary  to 
make  their  individual  total  equal  to  the  electoral  quotient,  the  process 
continuing  until  the  pool  is  exhausted.  Only  by  receiving  a  large 
number  of  individual  preferential  votes  can  a  candidate  be  elected  to 
the  exclusion  of  a  candidate  whose  name  precedes  his.1 

600.  The  Elections  of  1906, 19<)8,  and  1910. — The  first  parliamentary 
election  following  the  adoption,  of  the  proportional  system — that  of 
May,  1900 — left  the  Catholics  "with  a  larger  preponderance  in  the 
lower  chamber  than  they  had  daripd  expect.2  None  the  less,  the  effect 
of  the  change  was  distinctly  to  \revive  the  all  but  defunct  Liberal 
party,  to  stimulate  enormously  the  aspirations  of  the  Socialists,  and, 

1  Valuable   books   dealing  with   proportional  representation  in  Belgium  are 
G.  Lachapelle,  La  representation  proportionnelle  en  France  et  en  Belgique  (Paris, 
1911);  F.  Goblet  d'Alviella,  La  representation  proportionelle  en  Belgique,  and 
La  representation  proportionelle  integrate  (Paris,  1910);  Barriety,  La  representa- 
tion proportionelle  en  Belgique  (Paris,  1906);  Dubois,  La  representation  pro- 
portionelle soumise  a  1'experience  beige  (Lille,  1006);  and  J.  Humphreys,  Pro- 
portional Representation  (London,  1911).    A  careful  account  is  contained  in  the 
Report  and  Evidence  of  the  British  Royal  Commission  on  Electoral  Systems 
(1910),  Report,  Cd.  5,163;  Evidence,  Cd.  5,352.    Useful  articles  are:  E.  Mahaim, 
Proportional  Representation  and  the  Debates  upon  the  Electoral  Question  in 
Belgium,  in  Annals  of  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  May,  1900; 
E.  Van  der  Smissen,  La  representation  proportionnelle  en  Belgique  et  les  elections 
generates  de  mai  1900,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  July-Sept.,  jooo;  and  J. 
Humphreys,  Proportional  Representation  in  Belgium,  in  Contemporary  Review, 
Oct.,  1908. 

2  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  term  of  deputies  is  four  years,  half  retiring  every  two 
years.    There  is,  therefore,  a  parliamentary  election,  but  not  throughout  the  entire 
country,  every  second  year. 


GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

^  in  general,  to  replace  the  crushing  Catholic  plurality  of  former  years 
v'by  a  wide  distribution  of  seats  among  representatives  of  the  various 
parties  and  groups.  Prior  to  the  election  of  1890  the  Catholic  majority 
was  32.  The  election  of  1900  left  it  at  16;  that  of  1902,  at  26;  that 
of  1904,  at  20;  that  of  1906,  at  12;  that  of  1908,  at  8;  and  that  of 
1910,  at  6.  Following  the  elections  which  took  place  in  five  of  the 
nine  provinces  in  1906,  party  strength  in  the  Chamber  was  as  follows: 
Catholics,  89;  Liberals,  46;  Socialists,  30;  Christian  Democrats,  i. 
After  the  elections  in  the  other  four  provinces  in  1908,  it  was:  Cath- 
olics, 87;  Liberals,  43;  Socialists,  35;  Christian  Democrats,  i. 

The  elections  of  May,  I9IO,1  were  contested  with  unusual  keenness 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  Liberal-Socialist  coalition  seemed  to 
have,  for  the  first  time  in  a  quarter  of  a  century,  a  distinct  chance  for 
victory.  The  Catholics  were  notoriously  divided  upon  certain  public 
issues,  notably  Premier  Schollaert's  Compulsory  Military  Service  bill, 
and  it  was  believed  in  many  quarters  that  their  tenure  of  power  was 
near  an  end.  The  Liberal  hope,  however,  was  doomed  to  disappoint- 
ment; for,  although  both  Liberals  and  Socialists  realized  considerable 
gains  in  the  popular  vote  in  some  portions  of  the  kingdom,  in  only  a 
single  constituency  was  the  gain  sufficient  to  carry  a  new  seat.  The 
consequence  was  that  the  Catholic  majority  was  reduced,  but  not 
below  six,  and  party  strength  in  the  Chamber  stood:  Catholics,  86; 
Liberals,  45;  Socialists,  34;  Christian  Democrats,  i.  Among  reasons 
that  may  be  assigned  for  the  Liberal  failure  are  the  fact  that  the 
country  was  prosperous  and  not  disposed  to  precipitate  a  change  of 
governments,  the  alienation  of  some  voters  by  the  working  relations 
that  had  been  established  between  the  Liberals  and  the  Socialists, 
and  the  advantage  that  regularly  accrues  to  the  Catholics  from  the 
plural  vote. 

601.  The  Catholic  Triumph  in  1912. — During  the  years  1910-1912 
the  Catholic  tenure  of  power,  prolonged  uninterruptedly  since  1884, 
seemed  more  than  once  on  the  point  of  being  broken.  Most  of  the 
time,  however,  the  legislative  machine  performed  its  functions  suffi- 
ciently well  with  a  majority  of  but  half  a  dozen  seats,  and  the  drift 
of  affairs  operated  eventually  to  strengthen  the  Catholic  position. 
In  March,  1911,  Premier  Schollaert  introduced  an  education  bill 
looking  toward  the  placing  of  church  schools  upon  a  footing  financially 
with  the  schools  maintained  by  the  communes,  and  the  opposition  to 
this  measure  acquired  such  intensity  that  the  author  of  the  bill  was 
forced  to  retire.  But  his  successor,  De  Broqueville,  a  man  of  con- 

1  In  the  five  provinces  of  Brabant,  Anvers,  Namur,  West  Flanders,  and  Luxem- 
burg, the  term  of  whose  deputies  was  about  to  expire. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  547 

dilatory  temperament,  formed  a  new  Catholic  cabinet  which,  by 
falling  back  upon  a  policy  of  "  marking  time,"  contrived  to  stave  off 
a  genuine  defeat.  In  the  municipal  elections  held  throughout  the 
country  October  15,  1911,  the  Liberal-Socialist  candidates  were  very 
generally  successful,  but  the  parliamentary  elections  which  took  place 
June  2,  1912,  had  the  unexpected  result  of  entrenching  the  Catholic 
party  more  securely  in  power  than  in  upwards  of  a  decade.  The  com- 
bined assault  of  the  Liberals  and  the  Socialists  upon  "clericalism" 
fell  flat,  and  against  the  Government's  contention  that  the  extraor- 
dinary and  incontestable  prosperity  of  the  country  merited  a  con- 
tinuance of  Catholic  rule  no  arguments  were  forthcoming  which 
carried  conviction  among  the  voters.  The  Catholic  vote  showed 
an  increase  of  130,610,  the  Liberal  and  Socialist  opposition  an  in- 
crease of  40,402,  and  the  Christian  Democrats  a  decrease  of  4,692. 
The  new  chamber  consists  of  101  Catholics,  45  Liberals,  38  Socialists, 
and  2  Christian  Democrats,  giving  the  Government  a  clear  majority  of  ^  v 
sixteen.  The  elections  were  marked  by  grave  public  unrest,  involving 
widespread  strikes  and  anti-clerical  demonstrations,  with  some  loss  f  ' 
of  life.  More  clearly  than  before  was  exhibited  in  this  campaign  the 
essentially  bourgeois  and  doctrinaire  character  of  the  present  Liberal 
party.  The  intimate  touch  with  the  masses  which  in  the  days  of  its 
ascendancy,  prior  to  1884,  the  party  enjoyed  has  been  lost,  and  more 
and  more  the  proletariat  is  looking  to  the  Socialists  for  propagation 
of  the  measures  required  for  social  and  industrial  amelioration. 

602.  The  Demand  for  Further  Reform. — A  project  upon  which  the 
Socialists  and  Liberals  in  the  last  election,  as  upon  several  former 
occasions,  have  found  it  possible  to  unite  is  the  abolition  of  the  plural 
vote.  Almost  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  of 
1893  the  Socialists  declared  their  purpose  to  wage  war  unremittingly 
upon  this  feature  of  the  new  system.  In  its  stead  they  demanded  that 
there  be  substituted  the  rule  of  un  homme,  un  vote,  "one  man,  one 
vote,"  with  the  age  limit  reduced  to  twenty-one  years.  Following  the 
triumph  of  the  Catholics  in  1900,  the  agitation  of  the  Socialists  was 
redoubled,  and  in  it  the  Liberals  very  generally  joined.  Between  the 
two  groups  there  arose  seemingly  irreconcilable  differences  of  method, 
the  Liberals  being  unable  to  approve  the  obstructionism  and  other 
violent  means  employed  by  their  allies.  In  time,  however,  the  Social- 
ist methods  became  more  moderate,  and  the  realization  on  the  part 
of  both  elements  that  only  by  fighting  together  might  they  hope  to 
win  induced  a  fuller  and  more  durable  co-operation  between  the  two. 
For  the  time  being  the  Socialists  have  subordinated  to  the  establish- 
ment of  universal  and  equal  suffrage  all  other  features  of  their  political 


548  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

and  industrial  programme.1  Upon  the  desirability  of  maintaining 
proportional  representation  all  parties  are  agreed,  and  it  is  probably 
but  a  question  of  time  until  the  principle  will  be  applied  fully,  as  it  is 
not  to-day,  in  the  elections  of  the  provinces  and  communes. 

603.  The  Legislative  Chambers:  Organization  and  Procedure. — The 
two  houses  meet  by  established  right  on  the  second  Tuesday  in  No- 
vember of  each  year,  at  the  Palais  de  la  Nation,  in  Brussels.  A  regular 
session  must  continue  through  a  period  of  at  least  forty  days.  The 
king  may  convene  the  chambers  in  extraordinary  session.  He  may 
adjourn  them,  save  that  in  no  case  may  an  adjournment  exceed  the 
term  of  one  month;  nor  may  it  be  renewed  during  the  same  session, 
without  the  consent  of  the  houses.  Finally,  the  king  may  dissolve  the 
chambers,  or  either  of  them;  but  the  act  of  dissolution  must  include 
an  order  for  an  election  within  forty  days  and  a  summons  of  the 
newly  elected  parliament  to  meet  within  two  months.2 

Each  house  judges  the  qualifications  of  its  members  and  decides 
all  contests  arising  in  relation  thereto;  each  elects,  at  the  opening  of  a 
session,  its  president,  vice-president,  secretaries,  and  other  officials; 
each  determines  by  its  own  rules  the  manner  in  which  its  powers  shall 
be  exercised.  Sessions  are  normally  public;  but  by  vote  of  an  absolute 
majority,  taken  at  the  instigation  of  the  president  or  of  ten  members, 
either  body  may  decide  to  consider  a  specific  subject  behind  closed 
doors.  Votes  are  taken  viva  wee  or  by  rising,  but  a  vote  on  a  bill 
.as  a  whole  must  always  be  by  roll  call  and  viva  wee.  Except  on  prop- 
ositions pertaining  to  constitutional  amendments  and  a  few  matters 
(upon  which  a  two- thirds  vote  is  required),  measures  are  passed  by  abso- 
lute majority.  They  must,  however,  be  voted  upon  article  by  article. 

From  the  essentially  democratic  character  of  the  Belgian  govern- 
ment, it  follows  that  the  powers  of  the  legislative  chambers  are  com- 
prehensive. The  functions  of  legislation  are  vested  by  the  constitu- 
tion conjointly  in  the  king  and  the  two  houses,  but  in  practice  they  are 

1  August  15, 1911,  Socialists  and  Liberals  combined  in  an  anti-plural-vote  demon- 
stration in  Brussels  in  which  150,000  people  are  (estimated  to  have  taken  part.    For 
an  able  defense  of  plural  voting  under  the  system  prevailing  in  Belgium  see  L.  Du- 
priez,  L'Organisation  du  suffrage  universel  en  Belgique.    Cf.  E.  Van  der  Smissen, 
La  question  du  suffrage  universel  en  Belgique,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
Sept.,  1902.    On  recent  aspects  of  Belgian  politics  consult  L.  Dupriez,  L'6volution 
des  partis  politiques  en  Belgique  et  les  elections  de  mai  1906,  ibid.,  Sept.,  1906; 
A.  Kahn,  Les  elections  beiges,  in  Questions  Diplomatiques  et  Coloniales,  June  16, 1910; 
and  J.  Van  den  Heuvel,  Les  elections  beiges,  in  Le  Correspondant,  June  25,  1912. 
J.  H.  Humphreys,   Proportional   Representation   in   Belgium,   in   Contemporary 
Review,  Oct.,  1908,  contains  a  concrete  account  of  the  elections  of  1908.    A  useful 
volume  is  A.  Fromes,  Code  electoral  beige  (Brussels,  1908). 

2  Arts.  70-72.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  137. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  549 

exercised  in  a  very  large  measure  by  the  houses  alone.  Each  house,  as 
well  as  the  crown,  possesses  full  rights  of  legislative  initiative,  though 
it  is  required  that  all  laws  relating  to  the  revenues  or  expenditures  of 
the  state,  or  to  military  contingents,  shall  be  voted  first  by  the  House 
of  Representatives.  Authoritative  interpretation  of  measures  enacted K/ 
is  confided  exclusively  to  the  legislative  power,  and  each  house  is 
guaranteed  the  right  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  public  affairs  and  to 
compel  the  attendance  of  ministers  for  the  purpose  of  interpellation, 
although  the  lower  house  alone  is  given  power  to  formulate  charges 
against  public  officials  and  to  arraign  them  before  the  Court  of  Cassa- 
tion. 

IV.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

604.  The  Courts. — Aside  from  special  military,  commercial,  and 
labor  tribunals,  the  courts  of  Belgium  comprise  a  symmetrical  hier- 
archy modelled  upon  that  created  under  the  Cofje  Napnl£gn     At  thp  ^ 
bottom  are  the  courts  of  the  222  cantons,,  each  consisting  of  a  single    * 
justice  of  the  peace,  vested  in  ordinary  breaches  of  police  regulations 
with  sole  authority,  though  in  more  serious  cases  associated  with  the 
burgomaster  of  the  commune.    Next  above  are  the  tribunals  of  first  .. 
instance,  one  in  each  of  the  twenty-six  arrondissements  into  which  the 
kingdom  is  divided,  and  each  consisting  of  three  judges.    The  court 
of  first  instance  serves  as  a  court  of  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the 
cantonal  tribunal,  and  at  the  same  time  it  possesses  original  jurisdiction 
in  more  serious  cases  of  crime  and  misdemeanors  within  the  arrondisse- 
ment.    Above  the  courts  of  first  instance  stand  the  three  courts  of  ^ 
appeal,  sitting  at  Brussels,  Ghent,  and  Liege.     That  at  Brussels  con- 
Fists  of  four  chambers.    At  the  apex  is  the  Court  of  Cassation ^sit- 
the  capital.     In  this  supreme  tribunal  there  is  but  a  single 


fudge,  but  associated  with  him  is  a  large  staff  of  assistants.    TheJurLC- 
tion  of  the  Court  of  Cassation  is  to  determine  whether  the  decisions^  y 
inferior  tribunals  are  in  accord  with  the  law  and  to  annul  such  as  are 
jiot.    It  is  of  interest  to  observe,  however,  that  it  is  the  Court  of 
Cassation  that  tries  a  minister  upon  charges  preferred  bv  the  House  ~j 
of  Representatives^,  and  this  is  the  only  circumstance  under  which^the 
tribunal  exercises  any  measure  of  original  jurisdiction.    The  creation 
of  the  Court  of  Cassation  and  of  the  three  courts  of  appeal  is  specifically 
provided  for  within  the  constitution.   All  inferior  tribunals  are  created 
by  law,  and  none  are  permitted  to  be  established  otherwise.    For  the 
trial  of  criminal  cases  there  are  special  tribunals,  in  three  grades: 
police  courts,  correctional  courts,  and  courts  of  assize. 
All  judges  and  justices  of  the  peace  are  appointed  by  the  king  for 


550  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

life.  Members  of  the  courts  of  appeal  and  the  presidents  and  vice- 
presidents  of  the  courts  of  original  jurisdiction  are  selected  from  two 
double  lists  presented,  the  one  by  these  courts  and  the  other  by  the 
provincial  councils.  Members  of  the  Court  of  Cassation  are  selected 
from  two  double  lists  presented,  the  one  by  the  Senate  and  the  other 
by  the  Court  itself.  All  other  judicial  officers  are  appointed  by  the 
crown  independently.  Except  for  urgent  reasons  of  public  order  or 
morals,  sessions  of  all  tribunals  are  public,  and  every  judgment  must 
be  pronounced  in  open  court.  Unlike  Holland,  Belgium  has  a  well 

'  developed  system  of  trial  by  jury.  Jury  trial,  is  guaranteed  by  the 
constitution  in  all  criminal  cases  and  in  all  cases  involving  political 
or  press  offenses.  As  in  England  and  the  United  States,  it  is  the  func- 
tion of  the  jury  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  accused  is  guilty  and 
that  of  the  court  to  explain  the  law  and  to  pronounce  sentence.  A 
jury  consists  regularly  of  twelve  members.1 

605.  Local  Government:  Province  and  Arrondissement. — Upon 
the  subject  of  local  government  the  constitution  of  Belgium  is  less 
explicit  than  is  that  of  Holland.  Aside  from  specifying  that  provincial 
and  communal  institutions  shall  be  regulated  by  law,  it  contents  it- 
self with  an  enumeration  of  certain  principles — among  them  direct 
elections,  publicity  of  sittings  of  provincial  and  communal  councils, 
publicity  of  budgets  and  accounts — whose  application  is  regularly 

^  to  be  maintained.2  Of  local  governmental  units  there  are  three:  3 
the  province,  the  arrondissement,  and  the  commune.  The  provinces 

L  are  nine  in  number^ In  each  is  a  council,  elected  by  all  resident 
citizens  who  are  entitled  to  participate  in  the  direct  election  of  senators. 
The  term  is  eight  years,  half  of  the  membership  being  renewed  every 
four  years.  The  council  meets  at  least  once  a  year,  on  the  first  Tuesday 
in  July.  Its  sessions  must  not  exceed  four  weeks  in  length  nor  be 
briefer  than  fifteen  days.  Special  sessions  may  be  called  by  the  king. 

_    The  council  considers  and  takes  action  upon  substantially  all  legisla- 

.  tive,  administrative,  and  fiscal  affairs  which  concern  the  province 
alone.  It  elects  from  its  own  members  a  permanent  deputation  of 
six  men  which  is  charged  with  the  government  of  the  province  while 
the  council  is  not  in  session.  This  deputation  is  presided  over  by  the 
governor-general  of  the  province  who  is  appointed  by  the  crown  and 

1  Arts.  92-107.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  140-142.    Roubion,  La  separa- 
tion des  pouvoirs  administratif  et  judiciaire  en  Belgique  (Paris,  1905). 

2  Arts.  108-109.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  L,  142-143. 

3  Not  including  the  canton,  which  exists  purely  for  judicial  purposes.    It  is  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  justice  of  the  peace. 

4  Antwerp,  Brabant,  East  Flanders,  West  Flanders,  Hainaut,  Liege,  Limburg, 
Luxemburg,  and  Namur. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  BELGIUM  551 

*_z_ 

who  serves  as  the  principal  intermediary  between  the  provincial  ano? 
the  central  governments. 

The arrondissement,  or  district  (twenty-six in  number),  isinujojtant  v 
chiefly  as  an  electoral  and  judicial  unft.  Members  of  the  lower  house 
of  the  national  parliament  are  elected  within  the  arrondissement 
under  the  scheme  nf  proportional  representation  yhich  has  been 
described;  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  each  arrondissement  is  the 
seat  of  a  court  of  first  instance. 

606.  The  Commune. — In  Belgium,  as  in  France  and  other  con- 
tinental countries,  the  vital  organism  of  local  government  is  the  com- 
mune. The  total  number  of  communes  in  the  kingdom  is  2,620.  The 
principal  agency  of  government  within  each  is  a  council.  Members  of  • 
this  council  are  elected  for  a  term  of  eight  years,  under  arrangements 
of  a  somewhat  complicated  character  determined  by  the  population  of 
the  commune.  Voting  is  viva  wee;  plural  votes  (to  a  maximum  of 
four)  are  authorized;  and  seats,  under  certain  conditions,  are  allocated 
in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportional  representation.  A 
somewhat  singular  fact  is  that  the  aggregate  communal  electorate  of 
the  kingdom  is  perceptibly  smalfer  than  the  provincial  or  the  national 


percepti 
largely  f 


The  fact  arises  largely  from  the  circumstance  that  the^ommunal  voter 
is  required  to  have  been  domiciled  at  least  three  years  m  the  commune, 
while  residence  of  but  a  single  year  is  required  for  participation  in 
provincial  and  parliamentary  elections.* 

The  administrative  body  of  the  commune  consists  of  a  burgomaster^ 
or  mayor,  appointed  by  tne  crown  J,in  tammUhes  whose  population 
exceeds  5,000  elected  by  the  communal  council)  for  a  term  of  ten  years, 
and  a  college  of  tchevins,  or  aldermen,  elected  By  and .Horn  tne  com- 
munal council.  The  burgomaster  is  head  of  the  local  police,  and  to 
him  and  to  the  council  fall  the  keeping  of  the  register  of  births,  mar- 
riages, and  deaths,  the  making  and  enforcing  of  local  ordinances,  and, 
in  general,  the  safeguarding  of  the  welfare  of  the  community.  The  S 
more  important  measures  of  the  communal  council  become  valid  only 
after  they  have  received  the  approval  of  the  provincial  deputation, 
or  even  of  the  ministry  at  Brussels;  and  there  are  special  officials, 
known  as  commissaires  d? arrondissement,' appointed  by  the  provincial 
deputation,  to  maintain  supervision  over  the  communes  and  their 
governing  authorities.  A  fundamental  characteristic,  indeed,  of 
Belgian~administration  is  the  combination  of  constant  supervision  by  * 
the  central  powefc  with  a  really  large  measure  of  local  autonomy.2 

1  In  1902, 1,146,482  communal  electors  cast  a  total  of  2,007,704  votes.    In  1910- 
1911  there  were  1,440,141  provincial,  and  1,300,514  communal,  voters. 

2  Dupriez,  Les  Ministres,  262-276;  E.  de  Laveleye,  Local  Government  and  Taxa- 
tion, in  Cobden  Club  Essays  (London,  1875). 


PART  Vm.— SCANDINAVIA 

CHAPTER  XXX 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK 

I.  DEVELOPMENT  PRIOR  TO  1814 

The  kingdom  of  Denmark  is  among  the  smallest  of  European  states. 
Its  area  is  but  15,582  square  miles,  which  is  less  than  one-third  of 
that  of  the  state  of  New  York,  and  its  population,  according  to  the 
returns  of  1911,  is  but  2,775,076.  The  nation  is  one  whose  social 
experiments,  economic  enterprises,  and  political  practices  abound  in 
interest.  As  a  power,  it  counts  nowadays  for  little.  Time  was,  how- 
ever, when  it  counted  for  much,  and  the  developments  by  which  the 
kingdom  has  been  reduced  to  its  present  status  among  the  nations 
comprise  one  of  the  remarkable  chapters  of  modern  European  history. 

607.  Union  of  Kalmar,  1397. — The  maximum  of  Danish  dominion 
was  attained  by  virtue  of  the  Union  of  Kalmar,  in  1397,  whereby  the 
three  kingdoms  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden  were  united  under 
the  regency  of  Margaret,  daughter  of  the  Danish  king  Valdemar  IV.1 
By  the  terms  of  this  arrangement  the  native  institutions  and  the 
separate  administration  of  each  of  the  three  states  were  guaranteed; 
and,  in  point  of  fact,  so  powerless  at  times  during  succeeding  genera- 
tions was  the  Danish  sovereign  in  his  over-sea  dominions  that  for  all 
practical  purposes  each  of  the  three  affiliated  kingdoms  may  be  re- 
garded as  having  retained  essentially  its  original  independence.  Dur- 
ing an  extended  period  at  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  Sweden 
even  had  a  king  of  her  own.  None  the  less,  there  was  a  form  of  union, 
and  at  times  the  preponderance  of  Denmark  tended  to  reduce  the 
northern  nations  to  the  status  of  mere  dependencies.  The  union  with 
Sweden  lasted  only  a  century  and  a  quarter.  Under  the  leadership 
of  Gustavus  Vasa  the  Swedish  people,  in  1523,  effectually  regained 
their  independence,  although  in  accordance  with  the  Treaty  of  Malmo, 
in  1524,  certain  of  the  southernmost  Swedish  provinces  remained  for  a 

1  The  nominal  sovereign  was  Margaret's  great-nephew,  Eric  of  Pomerania,  who 
was  elected  at  a  convention  of  representatives  of  the  three  kingdoms  held  simul- 
taneously with  the  establishment  of  the  Union.  Eric  was  deposed  in  1439. 

553 


554  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

time  under  Danish  control.1  It  was  the  lot  of  Norway,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  alone  to  be  brought  more  thoroughly  into  subjection  to 
Denmark  than  was  Sweden,  but  to  continue  under  Danish  sovereignty 
until  1814,  and  even  at  that  date  to  pass  instantly  from  the  control  of 
Denmark  into  that  of  Sweden,  rather  than  to  regain  her  ancient 
independence. 

608.  The  Loss  of  Norway,  1814. — The  loss  of  Norway  by  Denmark 
was  an  incident  of  the  Napoleonic  wars.    During  the  course  of  those 
wars  Denmark,  as  long  as  was  practicable,  maintained  a  policy  of 
neutrality.    But  in  1807,  after  she  had  rejected  an  offer  of  a  British 
alliance,  she  was  attacked  by  a  British  fleet,  and  thereupon  she  became 
the  firmest  and  most  persistent  of  the  allies  of  Napoleon.    Thus  it 
came  about  that  when  the  contest  of  the  powers  drew  to  an  end  Den- 
mark had  the  misfortune  to  be  found  upon  the  losing  side.     Sweden 
stood  with  the  Allies,  and  the  upshot  was  that,  to  compensate  that 
nation  for  her  loss  of  Finland  to  Russia  and  of  Pomerania  to  Prussia, 
the  Allies  gave  their  consent,  in  1812-1813,  to  the  dismemberment  by 
Sweden  of  the  Danish  dominion.    The  work  was  accomplished  by 
the  French  marshal  Bernadotte,  crown  prince  of  Sweden  (by  adoption) 
from  1 8 10,  and  later  king  (1818-1844).    By  the  Treaty  of  Kiel,  Janu- 
ary 14,  1814,  Norway  was  ceded  perforce  by  Denmark  to  Sweden,  and 
by  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  later  in  the  year,  the  transfer  was  accorded 
the  formal  approval  of  the  powers.    The  Norwegians  objected  and 
proceeded  to  elect  as  their  king  a  Danish  prince;  but  in  the  end  they 
were  compelled  to  submit.    Denmark  was  unable  to  do  more  than 
make  ineffectual  protest. 

609.  Political  Development:  the  Revolution  of  1660. — The  govern- 
mental system  with  which  Denmark  emerged  from  the  era  of  Napoleon 
was  essentially  that  which  had  been  in  operation  in  the  kingdom  since 
the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.    Prior  to  a  remarkable 
revolution  which,  in  1660,  followed  the  conclusion  of  a  costly  war  with 
Sweden,  monarchy  in  Denmark  was  limited  and  almost  uniformly 
weak.    Through  three  hundred  years  the  kings  were  elected  by  the 
Rigsrad,  or  senate,  and  the  conditions  of  their  tenure  were  such  as  to 
preclude  both  the  independence  of  action  and  the  accumulation  of 
resources  which  is  essential  to  absolutism.    As  early  as  1282  the  nobles 
were  able  to  extort  from  the  crown  a  haandfaestning,  or  charter,  and 
almost  every  sovereign  after  that  date  was  compelled,  once  at  least 
during  his  reign,  to  make  a  grant  of  chartered  privileges.    To  the 

1  R.  N.  Bain,  Scandinavia,  a  Political  History  of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden 
(Cambridge,  1905),  Chap.  3;  P.  B.  Watson,  The  Swedish  Revolution  under  Gus- 
tavus  Vasa  (London,  1889). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  555 

Danehof,  or  national  assembly,  fell  at  times  a  goodly  measure  of 
authority,  although  eventually  it  was  the  Rigsrad  that  procured  the 
supreme  control  of  the  state.  The  national  assembly  comprised  the 
three  estates  of  the  nobles,  the  clergy,  and  the  burgesses; *  the  senate 
was  a  purely  aristocratic  body. 

In  1660  there  occurred  a  revolution  in  consequence  of  which  the 
monarchy  was  rehabilitated  and  a  governmental  system  which  long 
had  been  notoriously  disjointed  and  inefficient  was  replaced  by  a 
system  which,  if  despotic,  was  at  least  much  superior  to  that  which 
theretofore  had  been  in  operation.  The  nobles,  discredited  by  the 
calamities  which  their  misrule  had  brought  upon  the  nation,  were  com- 
pelled to  give  way,  and  the  estates  represented  in  the  Danehof  surren- 
dered, in  a  measure  voluntarily,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  privileges 
to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  lay  claim.  The  monarchy  was 
put  once  more  upon  an  hereditary  basis  and  its  powers  were  materially 
enlarged.  The  intent  of  the  aggressive  sovereign  of  the  day,  Freder- 
ick III.,  was  to  proceed  with  caution,  but  not  to  stop  half-way.  By  the 
promulgation  of  two  monumental  documents  the  road  was  thrown  open 
to  thoroughgoing  absolutism.  One  of  these  was  the  "Instrument,  or 
Pragmatic  Sanction,  of  the  King's  Hereditary  Right  to  the  Kingdoms 
of  Denmark  and  Norway,"  dated  January  10,  1661.  The  other  was 
the  Kongelov,  or  "King's  Law,"  of  November  14,  1665,  a  state  paper 
which  has  been  declared  to  have  "the  highly  dubious  honor  of  being 
the  one  written  law  in  the  civilized  world  which  fearlessly  carries  out 
absolutism  to  its  last  consequences."  2  In  the  Kongelov  it  was  made 
lese-majeste  in  any  manner  to  usurp  or  infringe  the  king's  absolute 
authority;  it  was  asserted  that  the  moment  the  sovereign  ascends  the 
throne  crown  and  scepter  are  vested  in  him  by  his  own  right;  and  the 
sole  obligation  of  the  king  was  affirmed  to  be  to  maintain  the  indivisi- 
bility of  the  realm,  to  preserve  the  Christian  faith  in  accordance  with 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to  execute  faithfully  all  of  the  provisions 
of  the  Kongelov  itself.  Such  were  the  principles  upon  which,  during 
upwards  of  two  centuries  thereafter,  the  government  of  the  Danish 
kingdom  was  based.  Absolutism  was  all  but  unrelieved;  but  it  is  only 
fair  to  add  that  most  of  the  sovereigns,  according  to  the  light  which 
they  possessed,  sought  to  govern  in  the  interest  of  their  subjects.3 

1  In  the  Swedish  diet  the  peasantry  constituted  a  fourth  estate,  but  in  Denmark 
no  political  power  was  possessed  by  this  class. 

2  Bain,  Scandinavia,  266. 

3  For  sketches  of  Danish  political  history  prior  to  1814  see  Bain,  Scandinavia, 
Chaps.  2,  4,  7,  10,  15;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generate,  III.,  Chap.  14,  IV., 
Chap.  15;  VI.,  Chap.  17;  VII.,  Chap.  23;  IX.,  Chap.  23.    An  important  Danish 
work  is  P.  F.  Barfod,  Damnarks  Historic,  1319-1536  (Copenhagen,  1885). 


556  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 


II.  THE  RISE  or  CONSTITUTIONALISM,  1814-1866 

610.  The  Provincial  Diets. — Gradually  after   1814  the  kingdom 
recovered  from  the  depression  into  which  by  its  loss  of  territory  and  its 
staggering  indebtedness  it  had  been  plunged,  and  with  the  recovery 
came  a  revived  political  spirit  as  well  as  a  fresh  economic  stimulus. 
The  sixteen  years  between  the  Treaty  of  Kiel  and  the  revolutionary 
year  1830  were  almost  absolutely  devoid  of  political  agitation,  but 
after  1830  there  set  in,  in  Denmark  as  in  most  continental  countries, 
a  liberal  movement  whose  object  was  nothing  less  than  the  establish- 
ment of  a  constitutional  system  of  government.    To  meet  in  some 
measure  the  demands  which  were  made  upon  him,  King  Frederick 
VI.  called  into  being,  by  decrees  of  1831  and  1834,  four  Landtags,  or 
diets,  one  in  each  of  the  provinces  of  the  realm — Schleswig,  Holstein, 
Jutland,  and  the  Islands.1    The  members  of  these  assemblies,  com- 
prising burgesses,  landowners,  and  peasants,  were  to  be  chosen  by  the 
landed  proprietors  for  a  term  of  six  years,  and  they  were  to  meet 
biennially  for  the  discussion  of  laws  and  taxes  and  the  drawing  up  of 
petitions.    A  few  landowners,  professors,  and  ecclesiastics  were  to  be 
appointed  to  membership  by  the  crown.    The  function  of  each  of  the 
four  bodies  was  purely  consultative. 

611.  Royal  Opposition  to  Reform. — From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Liberals,  whose  aim  was  the  institution  of  a  national  parliamentary 
system,  the  king's  concession  was  too  meager  to  comprise  more  than  a 
bare  beginning.    Throughout  the  remainder  of  the  reign  agitation  was 
kept  up,  although  at  the  hand  of  a  sovereign  whose  fundamental 
political  principle  was  the  divine  right  of  kings,  little  that  was  more 
substantial  was  to  be  expected.     Christian  VIII.,  who  succeeded 
Frederick  in  December,  1839,  brought  with  him  to  the  throne  a 
reputation  for  enlightened  and  progressive  views.    Further,  however, 
than  to  pledge  himself  to  certain  administrative  reforms  the  new 
sovereign  displayed  scant  willingness  to  go.    One  liberal  project  after 
another  was  repelled,  and  press  prosecutions  and  other  coercive  meas- 
ures were  brought  to  bear  to  discourage  propaganda.     It  was  in  this 
period,  however,  that  there  arose  a  preponderating  issue  whose  settle- 
ment was  destined  eventually  to  exert  a  powerful  influence  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  constitutional  government  in  Denmark,  i.  e.,  the  question 
of  the  policy  to  be  pursued  in  respect  to  the  affiliated  duchies  of 

1  The  ordinance  establishing  the  provincial  assemblies  was  promulgated  May  28, 
1831,  but  the  assemblies  did  not  come  into  existence  until  after  the  supplementary 
decrees  of  May  15,  1834.  In  1843  Iceland  was  granted  "home  rule,"  with  the  right 
to  maintain  an  independent  legislature. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  557 

Schleswig,  Holstein,  and  Lauenburg.1  During  the  later  years  of  the 
reign  successive  ministries  grappled  vainly  with  this  problem,  and 
the  political  forces  of  the  kingdom  came  to  be  divided  with  unprec- 
edented sharpness  by  the  conflict  between  the  separatist  tendency 
and  the  demand  for  immediate  and  complete  incorporation.  The 
king  himself  was  brought  eventually  to  consent  to  the  framing  of  a 
constitution  for  the  whole  of  his  dominions,  as  a  means  of  holding  the 
realm  together;  but  he  died,  January  20, 1848,  before  the  task  had  been 
completed. 

612.  The  Constitutions  of  1848-1849.— Within  eight  days  the  con- 
stitution was  promulgated  by  the  new  sovereign,  Frederick  VII. 
Under  its  provisions  there  was  established  a  parliament  representative 
of  all  of  the  Danish  dominions.  Neither  the  Danes  nor  the  inhabitants 
of  the  duchies,  however,  were  satisfied,  and  in  Holstein  there  broke 
out  open  rebellion.  Prussia  intervened  in  behalf  of  the  disaffected 
duchies,  and  Great  Britain  and  Russia  in  behalf  of  the  Danish  Govern- 
ment. The  result  was  the  triumph  of  the  Government;  but  in  the 
meantime  the  rescript  by  which  the  common  constitution  had  been 
promulgated  was  withdrawn.  In  its  place  was  published  a  decree 
which  provided  for  the  establishment  of  a  bicameral  national  assembly 
(Rigsdag),  of  whose  152  members  38,  nominated  by  the  crown,  were  to 
form  a  Lands  thing,  or  upper  chamber,  and  the  remaining  114,  elected 
by  the  people,  were  to  comprise  a  Folkething,  or  house  of  representa- 
tives. In  the  early  summer  of  1849  a  constitution  embodying  these 
arrangements  was  drawn  up;  and  June  5,  after  having  been  adopted 
by  the  new  Rigsdag,  the  instrument  was  approved  by  the  crown. 
For  the  moment  the  question  of  the  duchies  seemed  insoluble,  and  this 
second  constitution  was  extended  to  Jutland  and  the  Islands  only, 
i.  e.,  to  Denmark  proper.  Its  adoption,  however,  is  a  landmark  in 
Danish  constitutional  history.  Under  its  terms  the  autocracy  of  the 
Kongelov  was  formally  abandoned  and  in  its  place  was  substituted  a 
limited  monarchy  in  which  legislative  powers  were  to  be  shared  by  the 
crown  with  an  elective  diet  and  the  executive  authority  was  to  be 
exercised  by  ministers  responsible  to  the  legislative  body.  As  will 
appear,  it  was  this  constitution  of  June  5,  1849,  that,  with  revision, 
became  permanently  the  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom.2 

1  Holstein  and  Lauenburg  were  German  in  population  and  were  members  of 
the  German  Confederation.     Southern  Schleswig  also  was  inhabited  by  German- 
speaking  people,  though  the  duchy  did  not  belong  to  the  Confederation.    Schleswig 
and  Holstein  had  been  joined  with  Denmark  under  a  precarious  form  of  union 
since  the  Middle  Ages.    Lauenburg  was  acquired,  with  the  assent  of  the  Allies,  in 
1814-1815  in  partial  compensation  for  the  loss  of  Norway. 

2  Bain,  Scandinavia,  Chap.  16;  Cambridge  Modem  History,  XI.,  Chap.  24 


558  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

613.  The  Problem  of  the  Duchies. — Following  prolonged  inter- 
national conferences,  there  was  issued,  January  28,  1852,  a  new  con- 
stitutional decree  by  which  it  was  provided  that  the  kingdom  proper 
and  Schleswig,  Holstein,  and  Lauenburg  should  have  a  common 
constitution  for  common  affairs,  but  that  each  of  the  territories  should 
enjoy  autonomy  in  the  management  of  its  separate  concerns.    An 
ultra-conservative  constitution  which  had  been  worked  out  by  the 
Rigsdag  in  consultation  with  the  Landtags  of  the  duchies,  was  pro- 
mulgated October  2,  1855.    No  sooner  had  the  instrument  been  put 
in  operation,  however,  than  stubborn  opposition  to  its  provisions 
arose,  both  from  the  duchies  themselves  and  from  the  interested 
powers  of  Germany.    November  28,  1858,  the  Danish  Government 
yielded  in  so  far  as  to  consent  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  constitution 
from  Holstein  and  Lauenburg.    Through  several  years  thereafter  the 
question  of  the  duchies  overshadowed  all  else  in  Danish  politics  and  in 
Danish  diplomatic  relations.    March  30,  1863,  a  royal  decree  recog- 
nized the  essential  detachment  of  Holstein  from  the  monarchy  and 
vested  the  legislative  power  of  the  duchy  solely  in  the  king  and  the 
local  estates.    Later  in  the  year,  however,  the  premier  Hall  proposed 
and  carried  through  the  Rigsdag  a  constitution  which  contemplated 
.again  the  incorporation  of  Schleswig  with  the  kingdom.     To  this 
instrument  the  Council  of  State,  November  13,  gave  its  assent,  and, 
five  days  later,  with  the  approval  of  the  new  sovereign,  Christian  IX., 
it  became  law.    So  far  as  Denmark  was  concerned,  the  solution  of  the 
question  of  the  duchies  was  now  at  hand.    In  the  name  of  Prussia  and 
Austria,  Bismarck  demanded  summarily  that  the  November  con- 
stitution be  rescinded.    War  ensued,  and  by  the  Treaty  of  Vienna, 
October  30,  1864,  Denmark,  in  defeat,  yielded  all  claim  to  Schleswig, 
Holstein,  and  Lauenburg.    After  continuing  for  a  time  a  bone  of  con- 
tention between  the  leading  German  states,  these  territories  were 
incorporated,  subsequent  to  the  Austro-Prussian  war  of  1866,  in  the 
kingdom  of  Prussia.    Denmark,  shorn  of  a  million  of  population  and 
approximately  one-third  of  her  territory,  was  reduced  in  power  and 
area  to  substantially  her  present  proportions.1 

614.  The  Revised  Constitution  of  1866. — The  loss  of  the  duchies, 
while  humiliating,  cut  the  Gordian  knot,  of  Danish  political   re- 

(bibliography,  pp.  961-962);  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Ge"n6rale,  X.,  Chap.  18; 
C.  F.  Allen,  Histoire  de  Danemark  depuis  les  temps  les  plus  reculSs  jusqu'  a  nos 
jours  (Copenhagen,  1878). 

1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chap.  16;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire 
G£n6rale,  XI.,  Chap.  12;  J.  W.  Headlam,  Bismarck  and  the  Foundation  of  the 
German  Empire  (New  York,  1909),  Chap.  8;  H.  Delbrtick,  Der  Deutsch-Danische 
Krieg,  1864  (Berlin,  1905). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  559 

construction.  July  28,  1866,  the  constitution  of  July  5,  1849,  m 
revised  form,  was  reissued,  and  this  instrument  continues  to  the 
present  day  the  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom.  Its  ultimate  adop- 
tion was  the  achievement  largely  of  the  agricultural  interests  in  the 
Rigsdag;  but  the  king,  Christian  IX.,  though  not  in  sympathy  with 
the  parliamentary  ideal  of  government,  gave  it  his  cordial  support. 
The  constitution  is  an  elaborate  document,  in  ninety-five  articles. 
In  addition  to  the  customary  specifications  relating  to  the  executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial  departments  of  the  government,  it  contains  a 
wide  variety  of  guarantees  respecting  religion,  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the  press,  liberty  of  assemblage  and  of  petition,  and  uniformity 
of  judicial  procedure,  which,  taken  together,  comprise  a  very  sub- 
stantial bill  of  rights.1  The  method  of  its  amendment  is  not  materially 
unlike  that  prevailing  in  Holland,  Belgium,  and  a  number  of  other 
continental  countries.  Proposals  regarding  alterations  or  additions 
may  be  submitted  at  any  time  within  either  branch  of  the  Rigsdag. 
In  the  event  of  the  adoption  of  a  proposal  of  the  kind  by  both  cham- 
bers, it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  Government,  provided  it  favors  the 
change,  to  dissolve  the  Rigsdag  and  to  order  a  general  election.  If 
the  newly  chosen  Rigsdag  adopts  the  proposed  amendment  without 
change  and  the  crown  formally  approves  it,  the  modification  goes 
forthwith  into  effect.2  Constitutional  amendments  since  1866  have 
been,  however,  neither  numerous  nor  important.3 

III.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

616.  The  King:  Status  and  Powers.— The  form  of  the  Danish  gov- 
ernment is  declared  by  the  constitution  to  be  that  of  a  limited  mon- 
archy.4 The  throne  is  hereditary,  and  the  succession  is  regulated  by 
a  law  of  July  31, 1853,  adopted  in  pursuance  of  the  Treaty  of  London  of 

1  Arts.  80-94.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  278-280. 

2  Art.  95.    Ibid.,  L,  280. 

3  The  text  of  the  Danish  constitution,  in  English  translation,  is  printed  in  Dodd, 
Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  267-281;  H.  Weitemeyer,  Denmark  (London,  1891), 
203-217;  and  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  LVIII.  (1867-1868),  1,223  ff- 
The  best  brief  treatise  on  the  Danish  constitutional  system  is  C.  Goos  and  H.  Han- 
sen,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigsreichs  Danemark  (Freiburg,  1889),  in  Marquard- 
sen's  Handbuch.    A  Danish  edition  of  this  work  was  issued  at  Copenhagen  in  1890. 
The  best  extended  commentaries  are  H.  Matzen,  Den  Danske  Statsforfatningsret 
(3d  ed.,  Copenhagen,  1897-1901)  and  C.  G.  Hoick,  Den  Danske  Statsforfatningsret 
(Copenhagen,  1869).     T.  H.  Aschehoug,  Den  Nordiske  Statsret  (Copenhagen, 
1885)  is  a  useful  study,  from  a  comparative  point  of  view,  of  the  constitutional  law 
of  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden. 

4  Art.  i.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  267. 


560  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

May  8, 1852,  wherein  the  powers  bestowed  the  Danish  succession  upon 
Prince  Christian,  of  Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg,  and 
the  direct  male  descendants  of  his  union  with  the  Princess  Louise  of 
Hesse-Cassel,  niece  of  Christian  VIII.  of  Denmark.1  By  the  constitu- 
tion it  is  required  of  the  king  that  he  shall  not  become  the  ruler  of  any 
country  other  than  Denmark  without  the  consent  of  the  Rigsdag,  that 
he  shall  belong  to  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  (the  national 
church  of  Denmark,  supported  by  the  state),  and  that  before  assuming 
the  throne  he  shall  give  in  writing  before  the  Council  of  State  an  assur- 
ance, under  oath,  that  he  will  maintain  inviolate  the  constitution  of  the 
kingdom.2  The  royal  civil  list  is  fixed  by  law  for  the  term  of  the  reign. 
That  of  the  present  sovereign,  Frederick  VIII.,  is  one  million  kroner 
annually. 

The  powers  of  the  king  are  comprehensive.  Within  the  limitations 
prescribed  by  the  constitution,  he  exercises  "supreme  authority  over 
all  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom."  He  appoints  to  all  offices,  dismisses 
from  office,  and  transfers  from  one  office  to  another.  He  declares  war 
and  makes  peace.  He  concludes  and  terminates  treaties  of  alliance 
and  of  commerce,  on  condition  only  that  an  agreement  which  involves 
a  cession  of  territory  or  a  change  of  existing  international  relations 
must  receive  the  assent  of  the  Rigsdag.  He  exercises  the  power  of 
pardon  and  of  amnesty,  save  that  without  the  consent  of  the  Folke- 
thing  he  may  not  relieve  ministers  of  penalties  arising  from  impeach- 
ment proceedings.  He  grants  such  licenses  and  exemptions  from  the 
laws  as  are  authorized  by  statute.  He  convenes  the  Rigsdag  hi  reg- 
ular session  annually  and  in  extraordinary  session  at  will,  adjourns 
it,  and  dissolves  either  or  both  of  the  houses.  He  may  submit  to  it 
projects  for  consideration  or  drafts  of  laws,  and  his  consent  is  nec- 
essary to  impart  legal  character  to  any  of  the  measures  which  it  enacts. 
He  orders  the  publication  of  statutes  and  sees  that  they  are  executed. 
Finally,  when  the  need  is  urgent  and  the  Rigsdag  is  not  in  session,  he 
may  promulgate  ordinances,  provided,  first,  that  they  are. not  con- 
trary to  the  constitution,  and,  second,  that  they  are  laid  before  the 
Rigsdag  at  its  ensuing  meeting. 

616.  The  Ministry  and  the  Parliamentary  System. — For  the  meas- 
ures of  the  government  the  king  is  not  personally  responsible.  His 
powers  are  exercised  through  ministers,  who  are  appointed  and  may  be 
removed  by  him,  and  whose  number  and  functions  are  left  to  his 
determination.  The  ministries  are  nine  in  number,  as  follows:  For- 

1  Prince  Christian  became,  in  1863,  King  Christian  IX. 

2  One  original  text  of  this  pfedge  must  be  preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  crown, 
another  in  those  of  the  Rigsdag.    Art.  7.    Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I.,  267. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  561 

eign  Affairs,  Interior,  Justice,  Finance,  Commerce,  Defense,  Agricul- 
ture, Public  Works,  and  Public  Instruction  and  Ecclesiastical  Affairs. 
Collectively  the  ministers  form  the  Council  of  State,  over  which  the 
king  presides  and  in  which  the  heir  to  the  throne,  if  of  age,  is  entitled 
to  a  seat.  All  laws  and  important  public  matters  are  apt  normally  to 
be  discussed  in  the  Council  of  State.  There  is  also,  however,  a  Council 
of  Ministers,  consisting  simply  of  the  nine  heads  of  departments  under 
the  presidency  of  an  additional  minister  designated  by  the  crown,  and 
to  this  body  are  referred  in  practice  many  minor  subjects  that  call  for 
consideration. 

The  ministers,  so  the  constitution  affirms,  are  responsible  for  the 
conduct  of  the  government.1  The  king's  signature  of  a  measure  gives 
it  legal  character  only  if  accompanied  by  the  signature  of  one  or  more 
of  the  ministers,  and  ministers  may  be  called  to  account  by  the  Folke- 
thing,  as  well  as  by  the  king,  for  their  conduct  in  office.  There  is, 
furthermore,  a  special  Court  of  Impeachment  for  the  trial  of  min- 
isters against  whom  charges  are  brought.  On  the  surface,  these 
arrangements  seem  to  imply  the  existence  of  a  parliamentary  system 
of  government,  with  a  ministry  answerable  singly  and  collectively  to 
the  popular  legislative  chamber.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  there  has 
been  all  the  while  much  less  parliamentarism  in  Denmark  than  seem- 
ingly is  contemplated  in  the  constitution,  and  it  is  hardly  too  much 
to  say  that  since  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution  the  most 
interminable  of  political  controversies  in  the  kingdom  has  been  that 
centering  about  the  question  of  the  responsibility  of  ministers.  Until 
at  least  within  the  past  decade,  the  practice  of  the  crown  has  been 
regularly  to  appoint  ministers  independently  and  to  maintain  them  in 
office  in  disregard  of,  and  even  in  defiance  of,  the  wishes  of  the  popular 
branch  of  the  legislature.  The  desire  of  the  Liberals  has  been  to 
inaugurate  a  thoroughgoing  parliamentary  regime,  under  which  the 
sovereign  should  be  obligated  to  select  his  ministers  from  the  party 
in  control  of  the  Folkething  and  the  ministers,  in  turn,  should  be 
responsible  to  the  Folkething,  in  fact  as  well  as  in  theory,  for  all  of 
their  official  acts.  Throughout  the  prolonged  period  covered  by  the 
ministry  of  Jakob  Estrup  (1875-1894)  the  conflict  upon  this  issue  was 
incessant.  During  the  whole  of  the  period  Estrup  and  his  colleagues 
commanded  the  support  of  a  majority  in  the  Landsthing,  but  were 
accorded  the  votes  of  only  a  minority  in  the  lower  chamber.  After 
the  elections  of  1884,  indeed,  the  Government  could  rely  upon  a  total 
of  not  more  than  nineteen  votes  in  that  chamber. 

617.  The  Establishment  of  Ministerial  Responsibility. — Under  the 
1  Art.  12.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  268. 


562  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

continued  stress  of  this  situation  constitutionalism  broke  down  com- 
pletely. The  Government,  finding  its  projects  of  military  and  naval 
reform  persistently  thwarted  and  its  budgets  rejected,  stretched  its 
prerogatives  beyond  all  warrant  of  law.  Provisional  measures,  in  the 
form  of  royal  ordinances,  and  arbitrary  decisions  multiplied,  and 
budgets  were  adopted  and  carried  into  execution  without  so  much  as 
the  form  of  parliamentary  sanction.  In  time  the  forces  of  opposition 
fell  into  disagreement  and  the  more  moderate  element  was  brought  to 
the  point  of  compromise.  Between  the  Conservatives  and  the  Na- 
tional Liberals,  on  the  one  hand,  by  whom  the  Government  had  been 
supported,  and  the  conciliatory  element  of  the  Liberal  opposition,  on 
the  other,  a  truce  was  arranged,  and  in  1894,  for  the  first  time  in  nine 
years,  it  was  found  possible  to  enact  the  annual  finance  law  in  regular 
manner.  In  this  same  year  Estrup's  retirement  cleared  the  way 
for  the  appointment  of  a  moderate  Conservative  ministry.  Under 
Estrup's  successors  the  conflict  was  continued,  but  not  so  vigorously  as 
before.  More  and  more  the  political  center  of  gravity  shifted  to  the 
Folkething,  and  when  the  general  elections  of  1901  returned  to  that 
body  an  overwhelming  majority  of  Liberals,  Christian  IX.  was  at  last 
compelled  to  give  way  and  to  call  into  being  a  Liberal  ("Left  Reform") 
ministry.  It  is  too  much  to  say  that  the  parliamentary  system  is  as 
yet  completely  established  in  Denmark.  There  is,  however,  a  closer 
approximation  to  it  than  ever  before,  and  there  is  every  prospect  of  the 
ultimate  and  thorough  triumph  of  the  essential  parliamentary  prin- 
ciple. In  1908,  and  again  in  1909,  a  ministry  was  virtually  forced  to 
resign  by  the  pressure  of  parliamentary  opposition. 

IV.  THE  RIGSDAG — POLITICAL  PARTIES 

618.  The  Landsthing. — The  Rigsdag  is  composed  of  two  chambers — 
the  Landsthing,  or  Senate,  and  the  Folkething,  or  House  of  Represent- 
atives. The  Landsthing  consists  of  66  members,  of  whom  12  are 
appointed  by  the  king,  seven  are  elected  in  Copenhagen,  45  are  elected 
in  the  larger  electoral  divisions  comprising  rural  districts  and  towns, 
one  is  elected  in  Bornholm,  and  one  is  chosen  by  the  Lagthing  of  the 
Faroe  Islands.1  The  king's  appointment  of  members  is  made  for  life, 
from  among  active  or  former  members  of  the  Folkething.  Elected 
members  serve  regularly  eight  years,  one-half  retiring  every  four  years. 
The  seven  members  for  Copenhagen  are  chosen  by  an  electoral  college 

1  Art.  34.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  272.  The  status  of  the  Faroe  Islands 
is  that  of  an  integral  portion  of  the  kingdom,  not  that  of  a  dependency.  It  is 
analogous  to  the  status  of  Algeria  in  the  French  Republic.  No  other  outlying 
Danish  territory  is  represented  in  the  Rigsdag. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  563 

composed  of  (i)  electors  chosen  by  all  citizens  who  are  entitled  to  vote 
for  members  of  the  Folkething,  in  the  ratio  of  one  elector  for  every 
120  voters  or  major  fraction  thereof,  and  (2)  an  equal  number  of 
electors  chosen  by  the  voters  who,  during  the  preceoling  year,  have 
been  assessed  upon  a  taxable  income  of  not  less  than  2,000  rix-dollars. 
The  members  elected  from  the  rural  districts  and  towns  are  chosen 
indirectly,  after  a  manner  analogous  to  that  in  operation  in  the  capital.1 
The  result  is  a  very  successful  combination  of  the  principles  of  in- 
direct popular  election  and  indirect  representation  of  property.  In 
all  cases  the  election  of  members  takes  place  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  proportional  representation.2  Every  person  eligible  to  the 
Folkething  is  eligible  to  the  Landsthing,  provided  he  has  resided  in  his 
electoral  circle,  or  district,  during  the  year  preceding  his  election. 
619.  The  Folkething. — The  Folkething  is  composed  of  deputies 
chosen  directly  by  manhood  suffrage  for  a  term  of  three  years.  By  the 
constitution  it  is  stipulated  that  as  nearly  as  practicable  there  shall  be 
one  member  for  every  16,000  inhabitants.  In  point  of  fact,  the  total 
membership  of  the  Chamber  is  but  114,  whereas  at  the  ratio  indicated 
it  should  be  upwards  of  170.  Deputies  are  elected  by  secret  ballot 
(since  1901),  in  single-member  districts.  The  franchise  is  extended  to 
all  male  citizens  of  good  reputation  who  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty 
years,  except  those  who  are  in  actual  receipt  of  public  charity,  those 
who  have  at  one  time  been  recipients  of 'public  charity  and  have 
rendered  no  reimbursement  therefor,  those  who  are  in  private  service 
and  have  no  independent  household  establishment,  and  those  who  are 
not  in  control  of  their  own  property.  The  voter  must  have  resided  a 
minimum  of  one  year  in  the  circle  in  which  he  proposes  to  vote.3  With 
the  exception  of  non-householders  in  private  service,  of  persons  under 
guardianship,  and  of  recipients  of  public  charity,  all  male  citizens 
who  have  completed  their  twenty-fifth  year  are  qualified  for  election. 
Curiously  enough,  it  is  thus  possible  for  a  citizen  to  become  a  member 
of  the  Folkething  before  he  is  old  enough  to  vote  at  a  national  election. 
Members  of  both  chambers  receive,  in  addition  to  travelling  ex- 

1  For  details  see  Art.  37  of  the  constitution.     Dodd,  Modem  Constitutions,  I., 
272. 

2  It  is  of  interest  to  observe  that  Denmark  was  the  first  nation  to  make  use  of  a 
system  of  proportional  representation.    The  principle  was  introduced  originally 
as  early  as  1855,  in  the  constitution  promulgated  in  that  year,  and  it  was  retained 
through  the  constitutional  changes  of  1863  and  1866,  although  its  application  was 
restricted  to  the  election  of  members  of  the  upper  chamber.    An  account  of  its 
introduction  is  contained  in  La  representation  proportionnelle  (Paris,  1888),  pub- 
lished by  the  French  Society  for  the  Study  of  Proportional  Representation. 

3  Art.  30.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  271. 


564  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

penses,  regular  payment  for  their  services  at  the  rate  of  ten  kroner 
per  day  during  the  first  six  months  of  a  session,  and  six  kroner  for  each 
day  thereafter. 

During  recent  years  there  has  been  no  small  amount  of  agitation  in 
behalf  of  a  more  democratic  electoral  system.  In  April,  1908,  there 
was  enacted  an  important  piece  of  legislation  whereby  the  franchise 
in  municipal  elections  was  conferred  upon  all  resident  taxpayers  of 
the  age  of  twenty-five,  men  and  women  alike;  and,  beginning  with 
the  elections  of  1909,  women  have  both  voted  and  held  office  regularly 
within  the  municipalities.  By  the  legislation  of  1908  the  number  of 
persons  qualified  to  vote  at  local  elections  was  practically  doubled. 
Early  in  1910  a  measure  was  passed  in  the  Folkething  whereby  the 
age  limit  for  voters  in  parliamentary  elections  was  reduced  from 
thirty  to  twenty-five  years  and  the  suffrage  was  conferred  upon 
women  and  upon  persons  engaged  in  service.  This  measure  did  not 
become  law,  but  in  the  Folkething  elected  May  20  of  the  same  year 
Premier  Berntsen  introduced  a  new  bill  of  essentially  the  same  nature. 
The  question  of  proportional  representation  was  deferred,  the  bill 
providing  for  (i)  the  reduction  of  the  voting  age  to  twenty-five;  (2)  the 
increase  of  the  number  of  deputies  to  132;  and  (3)  the  extension  of  the 
suffrage  in  national  elections  to  women,  together  with  eligibility  for 
seats  in  both  of  the  legislative  chambers.  This  measure  likewise 
failed;  but  at  the  opening  of  Parliament  in  October,  1912,  fresh  pro- 
posals upon  the  subject  were  introduced. 

620.  The  Rigsdag:  Sessions  and  Powers. — The  Rigsdag  is  required 
to  meet  in  regular  session  on  the  first  Monday  in  October  of  every 
year.  Each  house  determines  the  validity  of  the  election  of  its  mem- 
bers; each  makes  its  own  regulations  concerning  its  order  of  business 
and  the  maintenance  of  discipline;  each  elects  its  own  president,  vice- 
presidents,  and  other  officers.  Each  has  the  right  to  propose  bills, 
each  may  present  addresses  to  the  king,  and  the  consent  of  each  is 
necessary  to  the  enactment  of  any  law.  By  provision  of  the  constitu- 
tion the  annual  budget  must  be  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Folkething  at 
the  beginning  of  each  regular  session,  and  no  tax  may  be  imposed, 
altered,  or  abolished  save  by  law.  Each  house  is  required  to  appoint 
two  salaried  auditors  whose  business  it  is  to  examine  the  yearly  public 
accounts  and  to  determine  whether  there  have  been  either  unre- 
corded revenues  or  unauthorized  expenditures.  For  the  adjustment  of 
conflicts  between  the  two  chambers  there  is  provided  a  method  where- 
by there  may  be  constituted  a  joint  conference  committee  similar  to 
that  employed  under  like  circumstances  in  the  American  Congress.1 
1  Art.  53.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  274. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  565 

Sessions  are  public,  and  a  majority  of  the  membership  constitutes  a 
quorum.  With  the  consent  of  the  house  to  which  he  belongs,  any 
member  may  propose  subjects  for  consideration  and  may  request 
explanations  from  the  Government  concerning  them.  Ministers  are 
entitled  to  appear  and  to  speak  in  either  chamber  as  often  as  they  may 
desire,  provided  they  do  not  otherwise  infringe  upon  the  order  of 
business.  By  reason  of  the  uncertain  status  of  ministerial  responsi- 
bility the  right  of  interpellation  means  as  yet  but  little  in  practice. 
The  minister  may  or  may  not  reply  to  inquiries,  and  in  any  case  he  is 
not  obliged  by  unfavorable  opinion  or  an  adverse  vote  to  retire. 

621.  Political  Parties:  the  Ministry  of  Estrup,  1876-1894. — Prior 
to  1848  the  preponderating  public  issues  of  Denmark  were  concerned 
chiefly  with  the  introduction  in  the  kingdom  of  a  constitutional  type  of 
government.  Between  1848  and  1864,  they  related  all  but  exclusively 
to  the  status  of  the  duchies  of  Schleswig,  Holstein,  and  Lauenburg. 
During  the  closing  quarter  of  the  past  century  they  centered  princi- 
pally hi  the  titanic  conflict  which  a  growing  and  indomitable  majority 
in  the  Folkething,  representing  a  no  less  determined  majority  of  the 
nation,  waged  with  King  Christian  IX.  and  his  advisers  in  behalf  of 
the  enforcement  of  constitutional  limitations  upon  the  crown  and  of 
ministerial  responsibility  to  the  national  legislative  body. 

The  prolonged  struggle  between  the  Government  and  the  parlia- 
mentary majority  had  its  beginning  in  1872,  when  the  various  radical 
groups  in  the  Folkething,  drawing  together  under  the  designation 
of  the  United  Left,  rejected  a  proposed  budget  and  passed  a  vote  of 
want  of  confidence  in  the  Conservative  Government.  The  avowed 
purpose  of  the  disaffected  elements  was  to  force  the  ministry  of  Hol- 
stein of  Holsteinborg  to  retire,  to  compel  the  sovereign  to  select  his 
ministers  from  the  parliamentary  majority,  and  to  enforce  the  prin- 
ciple of  ministerial  responsibility  to  the  lower  legislative  chamber. 
Supported  by  the  king  and  the  Landsthing,  however,  the  ministry 
refused  to  resign.  June  n,  1875,  there  was  called  to  the  premiership 
an  able  and  aggressive  statesman,  Jakob  Estrup,  who  through  the 
next  nineteen  years  continuously  maintained  the  Government's  posi- 
tion against  the  most  desperate  of  parliamentary  assaults.  During  the 
whole  of  this  period  Estrup  commanded  the  support  of  the  Landsthing, 
but  was  opposed  by  large  majorities  in  the  Folkething  and  throughout 
the  country.  The  struggle  raged  principally  upon  questions  of  finance. 
Estrup,  who  retained  for  himself  the  portfolio  of  finance,  was  bent  upon 
the  strengthening  of  Danish  armaments,  and  over  the  protest  of  the 
Folkething  huge  budgets  were  put  into  effect  again  and  again  by  sim- 
ple ordinance  of  the  crown.  From  1882  onwards  ordinary  legislation 


$66  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

was  at  a  standstill,  and  during  nine  years  after  1885  there  was  not  one 
legal  grant  of  supplies.  The  constitution  was  reduced  well  nigh  to 
waste  paper. 

622.  Later  Conservative  Governments:  the  Triumph  of  the  Left. — 
In  1886  the  Radicals,  despairing  of  overthrowing  the  Estrup  govern- 
ment by  obstruction,  resorted  for  the  first  time  to  negotiation.    Not 
until  April  i,  1894,  however,  was  the  parliamentary  majority  able  to 
agree  with  the  Government  and  the  Landsthing  upon  a  budget  which, 
by  being  made  retroactive,  legalized  the  irregular  fiscal  expedients  of 
the  past  two  decades.    In  August  of  the  same  year  Estrup  was  suc- 
ceeded in  the  premiership  by  Reedtz-Thott  who,  although  a  Conserva- 
tive, and  hence  a  supporter  of  the  Government's  position,  was  more 
favorable  to  conciliation  than  had  been  his  predecessor.    The  struggle, 
however,  was  by  no  means  ended.    The  elections  of  1895  and  of  1898 
resulted  in  decisive  victories  for  the  Liberals  and  Radicals,  and  in  the 
Chamber  the  Government  was  confronted  by  an  overwhelming  majority 
comprising  a  Moderate  Left,  a  Reform  or  Radical  Left,  and  a  group  of 
Social  Democrats.     Even  in  the  Landsthing  the  Government's  hold 
was  growing  less  substantial.    Reedtz-Thott,  none  the  less,  clung  to 
office  until  December,  1899,  and  after  his  retirement  there  followed  two 
more  Conservative  ministries — those  of  Horring  (December,  1899,  to 
April,  1900)  and  of  Sehested  (April,  1900,  to  July,  1901). 

On  July  1 6,  1901,  occurred  the  most  notable  political  event  in  a  half- 
century  of  Danish  history.  Confronted  by  a  majority  of  106  to  8  in 
the  Folkething,  besieged  by  widespread  popular  opinion,  and  possess- 
ing no  longer  a  dependable  majority  in  the  Landsthing,  the  aged  Chris- 
tian IX.  gave  way,  with  such  grace  as  he  could  muster,  and  summoned 
to  the  premiership  Professor  Deuntzer,  by  whom  was  constituted  a 
pure  Left  Reform  ministry.  At  the  partial  elections  of  September  19, 
1902,  the  Conservatives  lost  absolutely  their  majority  in  the  upper 
chamber,  while  in  the  Folkething  party  strength  was  so  redistributed 
that,  while  the  Conservatives  retained  their  eight  seats,  the  Social 
Democrats  acquired  fourteen  and  the  Left  Reform  party  seventy-seven. 
The  elections  of  June  16,  1903,  wrought  but  insignificant  changes  of 
status. 

623.  The  Christensen  Ministry  (1905-1908)  and  the  Elections  of 
1906. — As  was  to  be  expected  of  a  party  whose  role  had  been  regularly 
one  of  mere  opposition,  the  Left  Reform,  after  gaining  office,  developed 
a  certain  amount  of  internal  discord.    In  January,  1905,  the  Deunt- 
zer ministry  broke  up  and  a  more  homogeneous  and  moderate  cabinet 
was  organized  under  the  Left  Reform  leader  Christensen.    This  min- 
istry contrived  to  retain  office  until  October,  1908.    At  the  elections 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  567 

of  May  29,  1906,  the  Government  took  its  stand  upon  manhood  suf- 
frage in  parliamentary  elections,  equal  suffrage  in  municipal  elections 
(in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportional  representation)  for 
all  taxpayers,  and  the  reform  of  both  the  administrative  and  judicial 
systems.  Its  bitterest  opponents  were  its  former  allies,  the  Radical 
Left  (which  had  split  off  from  the  Left  Reform  party  after  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Christensen  ministry)  and  the  Social  Democrats,  though 
neither  of  these  parties  put  forward  a  programme  which  was  in  any  meas- 
ure specific.  After  an  unusually  spirited  contest  the  Government  was 
found  to  have  lost  three  seats,  the  Social  Democrats  to  have  gained 
eight,  the  Radical  Left  to  have  lost  four,  and  the  Conservatives  to 
have  gained  two.  The  resulting  grouping  in  the  Folkething  was  as 
follows:  Left  Reform  (Ministerialists),  55;  Moderate  Left,  9;  Radical 
Left,  9;  Social  Democrats,  24;  Conservatives,  13;  Independents,  3; 
member  for  Faroe  Islands,  i.  At  the  partial  renewal  of  the  Lands  thing 
in  September,  1906,  the  Government  lost  five  seats,  and  with  them 
the  majority  which,  aided  by  the  Moderate  Left  and  the  Free  Con- 
servatives,1 it  had  been  able  since  1901  to  control.  The  consequence 
of  its  losses  was  that  the  Christensen  ministry  drew  appreciably  toward 
the  Conservative  elements  of  the  Rigsdag,  as  against  the  Radicals  and 
Socialists. 

624.  Ministerial  Instability,  1908-1912.— October  n,  1908,  largely 
by  reason  of  the  scandal  in  which  it  was  involved  by  the  embezzlements 
of  the  minister  of  the  interior  Alberti,  the  ministry  of  Christensen  was 
replaced  by  a  cabinet  formed  by  Neergaard.  It  in  turn  retired,  July  31, 
1909,  defeated  upon  bills  to  which  it  was  committed  for  the  strength- 
ening of  the  national  fortifications.  The  Holstein-Ledreborg  ministry 
which  succeeded  was  able  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  bills,  but,  Octo- 
ber 22,  1909,  it  was  forced  out  on  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence.  At  the 
election  of  May  25,  1909,  in  which  the  military  bills  comprised  the 
principal  issue,  the  Left  Reform  government  had  continued  to  lose 
ground,  while  the  Radicals  (though  not  the  Social  Democrats)  and 
the  Conservatives  had  gained.  October  28,  1909,  a  new  ministry  was 
formed  by  the  Radical  leader  Zahle.  In  the  Folkething  the  Radicals 
possessed  20  seats  only,  but  with  the  aid  of  the  Social  Democrats,  pos- 
sessing 24,  they  hoped  to  be  able  to  attain  some  measure  of  success. 
The  hope  proved  vain.  April  18,  1910,  the  Folkething  was  dissolved, 
and  there  followed  another  spirited  campaign  in  which  the  military 
question  was  preponderant.  The  Radical  government,  with  its  Social- 
ist allies,  went  before  the  country  on  a  platform  which  proposed  the 

1  A  group  which,  after  the  formation  of  the  Deuntzer  ministry,  split  off  from  the 
Conservatives  in  the  upper  chamber. 


568  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

repeal  of  the  defense  measures  passed  during  the  previous  year.  But 
at  the  elections  of  May  20  both  Radicals  and  Social  Democrats  ob- 
tained precisely  the  respective  number  of  seats  which  they  had  before 
possessed,  while  69  deputies  were  returned  by  the  groups  which  were 
favorable  to  the  execution  of  the  contested  measures.  July  i,  the  Zahle 
ministry  resigned  and  was  succeeded  by  a  cabinet  formed  by  Klaus 
Berntsen,  leader  of  the  Moderate  Left.  The  new  ministry,  although 
drawn  exclusively  from  the  Left,  was  well  received  by  the  Conservatives, 
who  pledged  it  their  continued  support  against  the  Radical-Socialist 
coalition.1 

V.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

626.  General  Principles:  the  Courts. — In  the  Danish  constitution 
there  are  laid  down  a  number  of  general  principles  with  respect  to  the 
judicial  branch  of  the  government,  but  the  organization  of  the  courts 
is  left  almost  entirely  to  be  regulated  by  law.  It  is  stipulated  that 
judges,  who  are  appointed  by  the  crown,  may  not  be  dismissed  except 
in  consequence  of  judicial  sentence,  nor  transferred  against  their  wishes 
from  one  tribunal  to  another,  unless  in  the  event  of  a  reorganization 
of  the  courts;2  that  they  shall  exercise  their  functions  strictly  in  com- 
pliance with  law;  that  in  criminal  cases  and  cases  involving  political 
offenses  trial  shall  be  by  jury;  that  in  the  administration  of  justice  there 
shall  be,  so  far  as  practicable,  publicity  and  oral  procedure;  and  that 
it  shall  be  within  the  competence  of  the  courts  to  decide  all  questions 
relative  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  public  officials. 

The  tribunals  that  have  been  established  by  law  comprise,  beginning 
at  the  bottom,  the  magistracies  of  the  herreds,  or  hundreds,  and  the 
justiceships  of  the  towns;  a  superior  court  (Overret),  with  nine  judges, 
at  Viborg,  and  another,  with  twenty  judges,  at  Copenhagen;  and  a 
Supreme  Court  (Hojesteret),  with  a  chief  justice,  twelve  associate  judges, 
and  eleven  special  judges,  at  Copenhagen.  Of  hundred  magistrates 
(herredsfogder)  and  town  justices  (byfogder)  there  are,  in  all,  126.  Appeal 
in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases  lies  from  them  to  the  superior  courts, 
and  thence  to  the  supreme  tribunal.  There  is,  in  addition,  a  Court  of 
Impeachment  (Rigsret),  composed  of  the  members  of  the  Supreme 

1  The  salient  facts  relating  to  the  political  history  of  Denmark  since  1870  may  be 
gleaned  from  the  successive  volumes  of  the  Annual  Register.    Works  of  importance 
dealing  with  the  subject  include  N.  Neergaard,  Danmarks  Riges  Historic  siden 
1852  (Copenhagen,  1909);  H.  Holm,  Forligets  forste  Rigsdagssamling  1894-1895 
(Copenhagen,  1895),  and    Kampen  om  Ministeriet  Reedtz-Thott  (Copenhagen, 
1897);  H.  Barfod,  Hans  Majestaet  Kong  Christian  IX.  (Copenhagen,  1888);  and 
A.  Thorsoe,  Kong  Christian  den  Niende  (Copenhagen,  1905). 

2  At  the  age  of  sixty-five  they  may  be  retired  on  full  salary. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  DENMARK  569 

Court,  together  with  an  equal  number  of  members  of  the  Landsthing 
elected  by  that  body  as  judges  for  a  term  of  four  years.  The  principal 
function  of  this  tribunal  is  the  trial  of  charges  brought  against  minis- 
ters  by  the  king  or  by  the  Folkething.1 

626.  The  Administration  of  Justice  Act,  1908. — In  May,  1908,  a 
long-standing  demand  of  the  more  progressive  jurists  was  met  in  part 
by  the  passage  of  an  elaborate  Administration  of  Justice  bill,  whereby 
there  was  carried  further  than  previously  the  separation  of  the  general 
administrative  system  of  the  kingdom  from  the  administration  of  justice. 
Not  until  the  enactment  of  this  measure  were  the  constitutional  guar- 
antees of  jury  trial,  publicity  of  judicial  proceedings,  and  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  judiciary  put  effectively  in  force.    Curiously  enough, 
the  drafting  and  advocacy  of  the  bill  fell  principally  to  a  minister, 
Alberti,  who  was  on  the  point  of  being  proved  one  of  the  most  deliberate 
criminals  of  the  generation.     The  measure,  which  comprised  1,015 
clauses,  introduced  no  modification  in  the  existing  hierarchy  of  tri- 
bunals, but  it  readjusted  in  detail  the  functions  of  the  several  courts  and 
denned  more  specifically  the  procedure  to  be  employed  in  the  trial 
of  various  kinds  of  cases.    One  provision  which  it  contains  is  that  a 
jury  shall  consist  of  twelve  men,  that  any  person  who  is  eligible  for 
election  to  the  Folkething  is  eligible  for  selection  as  a  juryman,  and  that 
jury  service  is  obligatory.    On  the  ground  that  it  fell  short  of  fulfilling 
the  essential  pledges  of  the  constitution,  the  Radical  and  Socialist 
members  of  the  Rigsdag  vigorously  opposed  the  measure.2 

627.  Local  Government. — For  administrative  purposes   the  king- 
dom is  divided  into  18  Amter,  or  counties.    In  each  is  an  Amtmand, 
or  governor,  who  is  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  an  Amtsrad,  or  council, 
composed  of  members  elected  indirectly  within  the  county.     The 
counties  are  divided  into  hundreds,  which  exist  principally  for  judicial 
purposes,  and  the  hundreds  are  divided  into  some  1,100  parishes.    In 
each  town  is  a  burgomaster,  who  is  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  who 
governs  with  or  without  the  assistance  of  aldermen.     Copenhagen, 
however,  has  an  administrative  system  peculiar  to  itself.    Its  burgo- 
master, elected  by  the  town  council,  is  merely  confirmed  by  the  crown. 

1  Arts.  68-74.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  I.,  276-277. 

2  The  bill  was  carried  in  the  Folkething  by  a  vote  of  57  to  42;  in  the  Landsthing 
by  a  vote  of  38  to  5. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 

THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF 

NORWAY 

I.  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  TO  1814 

628.  Sweden  in  Earlier  Modern  Times. — During  the  centuries 
which  intervened  between  the  establishment  of  national  independence 
under  the  leadership  of  Gustavus  Vasa  in  1523  and  the  end  of  the 
Napoleonic  era,  the  political  system  of  the  kingdom  of  Sweden  oscil- 
lated in  a  remarkable  manner  between  absolutism  and  liberalism. 
The  establishment  of  a  national  parliamentary  assembly  antedated 
the  period  of  union  with  Denmark  (1397-1523) ;  for  it  was  in  1359  that 
King  Magnus,  embarrassed  by  the  unmanageableness  of  the  nobility 
and  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  support  of  the  middle  classes,  sum- 
moned representatives  of  the  towns  to  appear  before  the  king  along 
with  the  nobles  and  clergy,  and  thus  constituted  the  first  Swedish 
Riksdag.  By  an  ordinance  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  in  1617,  what  had 
been  a  turbulent  and  ill-organized  body  was  transformed  into  a  well- 
ordered  national  assembly  of  four  estates — the  nobles,  the  clergy,  the 
burghers,  and  the  peasants — each  of  which  met  and  deliberated  regu- 
larly apart  from  the  others.  There  was  likewise  a  Rigsrad,  or  senate, 
which  comprised  originally  a  grand  council  representative  of  the  semi- 
feudal  landed  aristocracy,  but  which  by  the  seventeenth  century  had 
come  to  be  essentially  a  bureaucracy  occupying  the  chief  offices  of 
state  at  the  pleasure  of  the  crown.  Under  Gustavus  Adolphus  and 
his  earlier  successors,  especially  Charles  XI.  (1660-1697),  however, 
the  government  took  on  the  character  of  at  least  a  semi-absolutism. 
The  Rigsdag  retained  the  right  to  be  consulted  upon  important 
foreign  and  legislative  questions,  but  the  power  of  initiative  was  ex- 
ercised by  the  sovereign  alone.  The  Riksdag  of  1680  admitted  that 
the  king  was  responsible  for  his  acts  only  to  God,  and  that  between 
him  and  his  people  no  intermediary  was  needed;  and  in  1682  the  same 
body  recognized  as  vested  in  the  crown  the  right  freely  to  interpret 
and  amend  the  law.1 

1  Bain,  Scandinavia,  Chaps.  8,  n;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  IV.  Chaps.  5,  20; 
Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generate,  III.,  Chap.  14;  IV.;  Chap.  15. 

570 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  571 

629.  Weakness  of  the  Monarchy  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. — A 

new  chapter  in  Swedish  constitutional  history  was  inaugurated  by 
the  calamities  incident  to  the  turbulent  reign  of  the  Mad  King  of 
the  North,  Charles  XII.  (1697-1718),  and  the  Great  Northern  War, 
brought  to  a  culmination  by  the  cession  to  Russia  in  the  Peace  of 
Nystad,  August  30,  1721,  of  all  the  Baltic  provinces  which  Sweden 
had  possessed.  Early  in  the  reign  of  Frederick  I.  (1720-1751),  chiefly 
by  laws  of  1720-1723,  the  government  was  converted  into  one  of  the 
most  limited  of  monarchies  in  Europe.  The  sovereign  was  reduced, 
indeed,  to  a  mere  puppet,  his  principal  function  being  that  of  presiding 
over  the  deliberations  of  the  Rigsrad.  Virtually  all  power  was  vested 
in  the  Riksdag.  A  secret  committee  representative  of  the  four  estates 
prepared  all  measures,  controlled  foreign  relations,  and  appointed  all 
ministers,  and  laws  of  every  kind  were  enacted  by  the  affirmative 
vote  of  three  of  the  four  orders.  The  constitutional  system,  while 
nominally  monarchical,  became  essentially  republican.  In  operation, 
however,  it  was  hopelessly  cumbersome,  and  throughout  half  a  century 
the  political  activities  of  the  kingdom  comprised  little  more  than  a 
wearisome  struggle  of  rival  factions.1 

Under  Gustavus  III.  (1771-1792),  nephew  of  Frederick  the  Great 
of  Prussia,  the  pendulum  swung  back  again  distinctly  toward  absolu- 
tism. The  Riksdag,  according  to  its  custom,  sought  at  the  opening 
of  the  reign  to  impose  upon  the  new  sovereign  a  renunciatory  corona- 
tion oath.  Gustavus,  however,  raised  objection,  and  the  contest  be- 
came so  keen  that  the  king  resolved  upon  a  coup  d'etat  whereby  to 
accomplish  a  restoration  of  the  pristine  independence  and  vigor  of  the 
royal  office.  The  plan  was  laid  with  care  and  was  executed  with  com- 
plete success.  August  20,  1772,  there  was  forced  upon  the  estates,  al- 
most at  the  bayonet's  point,  a  constitution  which  had  been  contrived 
specifically  to  transform  the  weak  and  disjointed  quasi-republic  into 
a  compact  monarchy.  The  monarchy  was  to  be  limited,  it  is  true,  but 
the  framework  of  the  state  was  so  reconstructed  that  the  balance  of 
power  was  certain  to  incline  toward  the  crown.  Without  the  approval 
of  the  Riksdag  no  law  might  be  enacted  and  no  tax  levied;  but  the  es- 
tates might  be  summoned  and  dismissed  freely  by  the  king,  and  in  him 
was  vested  exclusively  the  power  of  legislative  initiative.  Under  this 
instrument  the  government  of  Gustavus  III.,  and  in  even  a  larger  meas- 
ure that  of  Gustavus  IV.  (i 792-1809)^  was  pronouncedly  autocratic. 

1  Bain,  Scandinavia,  Chaps.  12-13;  Cambridge  Modem  History,  V.,  Chaps.iS-ig; 
Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Gene'rale,  VI.,  Chap.  17. 

2  Gustavus  IV.,  being  a  minor  at  his  accession,  did  not  assume  control  of  the 
government  until  November  i,  1796. 


572  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

630.  Sweden  in  the  Napoleonic  Period. — Sweden  is  one  of  the  many 
European  nations  which  in  the  course  of  the  Napoleonic  period  ac- 
quired a  new  constitutional  system,  but  one  of  the  few  in  which  the 
fundamentals  of  the  system  at  that  time  established  have  been  main- 
tained continuously  to  the  present  day.    Sweden  was  drawn  into  the 
Napoleonic  wars  at  an  early  stage  of  their  progress.    December  3, 
1804,  Gustavus  IV.  cast  in  his  fortunes  on  the  side  of  the  foes  of 
France,  and  although  in  1806-1807  Napoleon  sought  to  detach  him 
from  the  Allies,  all  effort  in  that  direction  failed.    The  position  of 
Gustavus,  however,  was  undermined  in  his  own  country  by  his  failure 
to  defend  Finland  on  the  occasion  of  the  Russian  invasion  of  1808,  and 
March  29,  1809,  yielding  to  popular  pressure,  and  hoping  to  save  the 
crown  for  his  son,  he  abdicated.    By  the  Riksdag  the  royal  title,  with- 
held from  the  young  Prince  Gustavus,  was  bestowed  upon  the  eldest 
brother  of  Gustavus  III.,  who,  under  the  name  of  Charles  XIII.,  was 
proclaimed  June  5.    On  the  same  day  the  Riksdag  ratified  formally 
an  elaborate  regerings-formen,  or  fundamental  law,  which,  amended 
from  time  to  time,  has  been  preserved  to  the  present  day  as  the  con- 
stitution of  the  kingdom.1 

631.  Constitutional   Development   of   Norway   to    1814. — During 
more  than  four  centuries,  from  the  Union  of  Kalmar,  in  1397,  to  the 
Treaty  of  Kiel,  January  14,  1814,  Norway  was  continuously  subordi- 
nated more  or  less  completely  to  Denmark.    The  political  history  and 
constitutional  development  of  the  nation,  therefore,  had  little  oppor- 
tunity to  move  in  normal  channels.    Prior  to  the  Union  the  royal 
power  was  considerable,  and  at  times  virtually  absolute,  although  an 
ever  present  obstacle  to  the  consolidation  of  the  monarchy  was  the 
independent  spirit  of  the  nobility.    By  the  fourteenth  century,  how- 
ever, the  old  landed  aristocracy,  decimated  by  civil  war  and  impover- 
ished by  the  loss  of  the  fur  trade  to  Russia,  had  been  so  weakened  that 
it  no  longer  endangered  in  any  degree  the  royal  supremacy.    From  the 
end  of  the  thirteenth  century  we  hear  of  a  pdliment,  or  parliament, 
which  was  summoned  occasionally  at  the  pleasure  of  the  king.    But 
at  no  time  had  this  gathering  assumed  the  character  of  an  established 
national  legislative  body. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  political  status  the  history  of  Norway 
under  the  Union  falls  into  four  fairly  clearly  marked  periods.  The 
first,  extending  from  1397  to  the  accession  of  Christian  I.  in  1450, 
culminated  in  an  unsuccessful  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Norwegians 
to  throw  off  the  Danish  yoke.  The  second,  extending  from  1450  to  the 

1  See  p.  589.  Bain,  Scandinavia,  Chap.  14;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Ge"n- 
6rale,  VII.,  Chap.  23;  VIII.,  Chap.  23. 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  573 

recognition  of  Frederick  I.  as  king  in  Norway  in  1524,  was  marked  by 
a  still  closer  union  between  the  two  kingdoms.  The  third,  beginning 
with  the  accession  of  Frederick  and  closing  with  the  Danish  revolution 
of  1660,  was  a  period  in  which,  largely  in  consequence  of  the  Protestant 
Revolt,  Norway  was  reduced  virtually  to  the  level  of  a  subjugated 
province.  The  fourth,  inaugurated  by  the  rehabilitation  of  the 
monarchy  in  Denmark  in  1660,  witnessed  the  raising  of  Norway  from 
the  status  of  subjection  to  the  rank  of  a  sovereign,  hereditary  kingdom 
on  a  footing  of  approximate  equality  with  Denmark.  The  period 
closed  with  a  widespread  revival  of  the  nationalist  spirit,  one  of  the 
first  fruits  of  which  was  the  obtaining,  in  1807,  of  an  administrative 
system  separate  from  that  of  Denmark  and,  in  1811,  of  the  privilege 
of  founding  at  Christiania  a  national  university.1 

n.  THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION,  1814-1905 

632.  Bernadotte  and  the  Treaty  of  Kiel.— As  has  been  pointed  out, 
the  kingdom  of  Sweden  acquired  independence  of  Denmark  near  the 
end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  liberation  of 
Norway  was  delayed  until  the  era  of  Napoleon,  and  when  it  came  it 
meant,  not  the  independence  which  the  Norwegians  craved,  but 
forced  affiliation  with  their  more  numerous  and  more  powerful  neigh- 
bors on  the  east.  The  succession  of  events  by  which  the  new  arrange- 
ment was  brought  about  was  engineered  principally  by  Napoleon's 
ex-marshal  Bernadotte.  May  28,  1810,  Prince  Charles  Augustus  of 
Augustenburg,  whom  the  Riksdag  had  selected  as  heir  to  the  infirm 
and  childless  Charles  XIII.,  died,  and  after  a  notable  contest,  Berna- 
dotte was  agreed  upon  unanimously  by  the  four  estates  (August  21) 
as  the  new  heir.  November  5  the  adventuresome  Frenchman  re- 
ceived the  homage  of  the  estates  and  was  adopted  by  the  king  as  crown 
prince  under  the  name  of  Charles  John.2  By  reason  of  the  infirmity 
of  the  sovereign,  Bernadotte  acquired  almost  at  once  virtual  control 
of  the  government.  From  the  outset  he  believed  it  to  be  impossible 
for  Sweden  to  recover  Finland;  but  he  believed  no  less  that  she  might 
recoup  herself,  with  the  assent  of  the  powers,  by  the  acquisition  of  the 
Danish  dominion  of  Norway.  In  March  and  April,  1813,  Great 
Britain  and  Russia  were  brought  to  the  point  of  giving  the  desired 
assent,  and  by  the  Treaty  of  Kiel,  January  14,  1814,  the  king  of  Den- 

1  Bain,  Scandinavia,  Chaps.  4,  5,  7,  10, 15;  H.  H.  Boyesen,  A  History  of  Norway 
from  the  Earliest  Times  (2d  ed.,  London,  1000). 

2  Upon  the  death  of  Charles  XIII.,  February  5,  1818,  the  "prince"  succeeded  to 
the  throne  under  the  name  of  Charles  XIV.    He  reigned  until  1844. 


574  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

mark,  under  pressure  applied  by  the  Allies,  made  the  desired  sur- 
render.1 

633.  The  Movement  for  Norwegian  Independence:  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1814. — In  Norway  there  was  small  disposition  to  accept  the 
new  arrangement.    Instead  there  was  set  up  the  theory  that  when  the 
Danish  sovereign  renounced  his  claim  to  the  throne  of  his  northern 
dominion  the  Norwegian  state  legally  reverted  forthwith  to  its  former 
condition  of  independence.    Upon  this  assumption  112  representatives 
of  the  nation,  of  whom  82  were  opposed  to  union  with  Sweden,  met 
at  the  Eidsvold  iron-works  near  Christiania,  and  drew  up  a  liberal 
constitution  modelled  principally  on  the  French  instrument  of  1791, 
under  which  was  established  a  national  Storthing,  or  parliament. 
May  17,  furthermore,  Prince  Christian  Frederick,  the  Danish  gov- 
ernor of  the  country,  was  elected  king  of  Norway.    From  the  Swedish 
point  of  view  these  sovereign  acts  were  absolutely  invalid,  and  upon 
Norway's  rejection  of  mediation  by  the  powers  Bernadotte  invaded 
the  country  at  the  head  of  a  Swedish  army.    In  a  short,  sharp  cam- 
paign the  Norwegians  were  hopelessly  beaten,2  and  the  upshot  was 
that  Christian  Frederick  was  forced  to  abdicate  (October  7, 1814),  the 
Storthing  was  compelled  to  give  its  assent  to  the  union  with  Sweden 
(October  20),  the  Eidsvold  constitution  was  revised  (November  4) 
to  bring  it  into  accord  with  the  conditions  of  the  union,  and  the  Stor- 
thing went  through  the  formality  of  electing  Charles  XIII.  king  of 
Norway  and  of  recognizing  Bernadotte  as  heir  to  the  throne.    Fifty  of 
the  one  hundred  ten  articles  of  the  Eidsvold  constitution  were  re- 
tained unaltered;  the  remainder  were  revised  or  omitted.    Amended 
upon  a  number  of  subsequent  occasions,  this  constitution  of  Novem- 
ber 4,  1814,  has  continued  in  operation  to  the  present  day  as  the 
Grundlov,  or  fundamental  law,  of  the  Norwegian  state.    No  constitu- 
tion was  ever  born  of  a  more  interesting  contest  for  national  dignity 
and  independence. 

634.  Nature  of  the  Union. — The  union  of  the  two  states  was  of  a 
purely  personal  character;  that  is  to  say,  it  was  a  union  solely  through 
the  crown.    Each  of  the  kingdoms  maintained  its  own  constitution, 
its  own  ministry,  its  own  legislature,  its  own  laws,  its  own  financial 
system,  its  own  courts,  its  own  army  and  navy.    The  legal  basis  of  the 
affiliation  was  the  Riksakt,  or  Act  of  Union,  of  August,  1815, — an 
ultimate  agreement  between  the  two  states  which  in  Norway  was 

1C.  Schefer,  Bernadotte  roi  (Paris,  1899);  L.  Pingaud,  Bernadotte,  Napoleon, 
et  les  Bourbons  (Paris,  1901);  G.  R.  Lagerhjelm,  Napoleon  och  Carl  Johan,  1813 
(Stockholm,  1891). 

2G.  Bjorlin,  Der  Krieg  in  Norwegen,  1814  (Stuttgart,  1895). 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  575 

formally  adopted  by  the  Storthing  as  a  part  of  the  Norwegian  fun- 
damental law,  but  which  in  Sweden  was  regarded  as  a  treaty,  and 
hence  was  never  incorporated  by  the  Rigsdag  within  the  constitution. 
In  each  of  the  states  the  functions  and  status  of  the  crown  were  reg- 
ulated by  constitutional  provisions;  and  the  character  of  the  royal 
power  was  by  no  means  the  same  in  the  two.  In  Sweden,  for  example, 
the  king  possessed  independent  legislative  power  and  his  veto  was 
absolute;  in  Norway  he  possessed  no  such  independent  prerogative 
and  his  veto  was  only  suspensive.  There  was  a  common  ministry  of 
war  and  another  of  foreign  affairs;  beyond  this  the  functions  of  a  com- 
mon administration  were  vested  in  a  complicated  system  of  joint 
councils  of  state.  Matters  of  common  concern  lying  outside  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  crown  were  regulated  by  concurrent  resolutions  or 
laws  passed  by  the  Riksdag  and  the  Storthing  independently.  But 
in  all  matters  of  internal  legislation  and  administration  the  two  king- 
doms were  as  separate  as  if  no  legal  relations  had  been  established  be- 
tween them.  There  was  not  even  a  common  citizenship. 

636.  Causes  of  Friction. — From  the  outset  the  union  was  menaced 
by  perennial  friction.  Differences  between  the  two  kingdoms  in 
respect  to  language,  manners,  and  economic  concerns  were  pro- 
nounced; differences  of  social  and  political  ideas  were  still  more  con- 
siderable; differences  in  governmental  theories  and  institutions  were 
seemingly  irreconcilable.  In  Sweden  the  tone  of  the  political  system, 
until  far  in  the  nineteenth  century,  was  distinctly  autocratic,  and  that 
of  the  social  system  aristocratic;  in  Norway  the  principle  that  pre- 
ponderated was  rather  that  of  democracy.  Between  the  two  states 
there  was  disagreement  upon  even  the  fundamental  question  of  the 
nature  of  the  union.  The  Swedish  contention  was  that  at  the  Peace  of 
Kiel  Norway  was  ceded  to  Sweden  by  Denmark  and  that  the  mere 
fact  that,  following  the  unsuccessful  attempt  of  the  Norwegians  to 
establish  their  independence,  Sweden  had  chosen  to  grant  the  affiliated 
kingdom  a  separate  statehood  and  local  autonomy  did  not  contravene 
Norway's  essentially  subordinate  position  within  the  union.  The 
Norwegians,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained  that,  in  the  last  analysis, 
they  comprised  an  independent  nation  and  that  their  union  with 
Sweden  rested  solely  upon  their  own  sovereign  decision  in  1814  to 
accept  Charles  XIII.  as  king;  from  which  the  inference  was  that 
Norway  should  be  dealt  with  as  in  every  respect  co-ordinate  with 
Sweden.  The  conflicts  which  sprang  from  these  differences  of  concep- 
tion were  frequent  and  serious.  There  was  no  disguising  the  fact  that 
the  administration  of  the  joint  affairs  of  the  kingdoms  was  conducted 
from  a  point  of  view  that  was  essentially  Swedish,  and  the  history  of 


576  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  union  throughout  the  period  of  its  existence  is  largely  a  story  of  the 
struggle  on  the  part  of  the  Norwegians,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Storthing,  to  attain  in  practice  the  fully  co-ordinate  position  which 
they  believed  to  be  rightfully  theirs.  Again  and  again  amendments 
to  the  constitution  in  the  interest  of  the  royal  power  were  submitted 
by  successive  sovereigns,  only  to  be  rejected  by  the  Storthing. 

In  1860  the  Swedish  estates  insisted  upon  a  revision  of  the  Act  of 
Union  which  should  include  the  establishment  of  a  common  parliament 
for  the  two  countries,  in  which,  in  approximate  accordance  with  popu- 
lation, there  would  be  twice  as  many  Swedish  members  as  Norwegian. 
The  Storthing,  naturally  enough,  rejected  the  proposition.  In  1869 
the  Storthing  fortified  its  position  by  adopting  a  resolution  in  accord- 
ance with  which  its  sessions,  theretofore  triennial,  were  made  annual, 
and  in  1871  the  first  annual  Storthing  rejected  an  elaborate  modifica- 
tion of  the  Act  of  Union,  to  which  the  Conservative  ministry  of  Stang 
had  been  induced  to  lend  its  support,  whereby  the  supremacy  of 
Sweden  would  have  been  recognized  explicitly  and  the  bonds  of  the 
union  would  have  been  tightened  correspondingly.  Two  years  later 
the  new  sovereign,  Oscar  II.  (1872-1907),  gave  reluctant  assent  to  a 
measure  by  which  the  office  of  viceroy  in  Norway  was  abolished. 
Thereafter  the  head  of  the  government  at  Christiania  was  the  presi- 
dent of  the  ministry,  or  premier;  and,  following  a  prolonged  contest, 
in  the  early  eighties  there  was  forced  upon  the  crown  the  principle  of 
ministerial  responsibility  (in  Norway). 

636.  The  Question  of  the  Consular  Service. — The  rock  upon  which 
the  union  foundered  eventually,  however,  was  Norway's  participation 
in  the  management  of  diplomatic  and  consular  affairs.  The  subject 
was  one  which  had  been  left  in  1814  without  adequate  provision,  and 
throughout  the  century  it  gave  rise  to  repeated  difficulties.  In  1885, 
and  again  in  1891,  there  was  an  attempt  to  solve  the  problem,  but 
upon  each  occasion  the  only  result  was  a  deadlock,  the  Storthing  in- 
sisting upon,  and  the  Swedish  authorities  denying,  Norway's  right, 
as  an  independent  kingdom,  to  participate  equally  with  Sweden  in  the 
conduct  of  the  foreign  relations  of  the  two  states.  In  1892  the  Stor- 
thing resolved  upon  the  establishment  of  an  independent  Norwegian 
consular  service;  but  to  this  the  king  would  not  assent.  Norwegian 
trading  and  maritime  interests  had  come  to  be  such  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  commercial  and  other  influential  classes  of  the  kingdom,  sep- 
arateness  of  consular  administration  was  indispensable,  and  upon 
the  success  of  this  reform  was  made  to  hinge  eventually  the  perpetuity 
of  the  union  itself.  Throughout  several  years  the  deadlock  continued. 
At  the  Norwegian  elections  of  1894  and  1897  the  Liberals  were  over- 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  577 

whelmingly  successful,  and  it  was  made  increasingly  apparent  that  the 
Norwegian  people  were  veering  strongly  toward  unrestricted  na- 
tional independence.  July  28,  1902,  a  lengthy  report  was  submitted 
by  a  Swedish-Norwegian  Consular  Commission,  constituted  upon 
Swedish  initiative  earlier  in  the  year,  in  which  the  practicability  of 
two  entirely  separate  consular  systems  was  asserted,  and,  March  24, 
1903,  an  official  communique  announced  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement 
between  representatives  of  the  two  countries  under  which  there  were 
to  be  worked  out  two  essentially  identical  codes  of  law  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  two  systems.  Upon  the  nature  of  these  codes,  however, 
there  arose  serious  disagreement,  and  when,  in  1904,  the  Bostrdm 
ministry  of  Sweden  submitted  as  an  absolute  condition  that  any 
Norwegian  consul  might  be  removed  from  office  by  the  Swedish  for- 
eign minister,  the  entire  project  was  brought  to  naught. 

637.  The  Norwegian  Declaration  of  Independence:  the  Separa- 
tion.— March  i,  1905,  the  Norwegian  ministry  presided  over  by 
Hagerup  resigned  and  was  replaced  by  a  ministry  made  up  by  Chris- 
tian Michelsen,  which  included  representatives  of  both  the  Liberal 
and  Conservative  parties.  May  23  the  Storthing,  by  unanimous  vote, 
passed  a  new  bill  for  the  establishment  of  Norwegian  consulships. 
The  king,  four  days  later,  vetoed  the  measure;  whereupon  the  Michel- 
sen  government  resigned.  The  king  refused  to  accept  the  resignation; 
the  ministers  refused  to  reconsider  it.  June  7  Michelsen  and  his  col- 
leagues placed  their  resignation  in  the  hands  of  the  Storthing,  and 
that  body,  impelled  at  last  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot,  adopted  by 
unanimous  vote  a  resolution  to  the  effect  (i)  that,  the  king  having 
admitted  his  inability  to  form  a  Government,  the  constitutional  powers 
of  the  crown  had  become  inoperative,  and  (2)  that  Oscar  II.  having 
ceased  to  act  as  king  of  Norway,  the  union  with  Sweden  was  to  be 
regarded  as  ipso  facto  dissolved.  By  another  unanimous  vote  the 
ministerial  group  was  authorized  to  exercise  temporarily  the  pre- 
rogatives hitherto  vested  in  the  sovereign. 

On  the  part  of  certain  elements  in  Sweden  there  was  a  disposition 
to  resist  Norwegian  independence,  and  for  a  time  there  was  prospect 
of  war.  The  mass  of  the  people,  however,  cared  but  little  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  union.  The  prevailing  national  sentiment  was 
expressed  with  aptness  by  the  king  himself  when  he  affirmed  that  "  a 
union  to  which  both  parties  do  not  give  their  free  and  willing  consent 
will  be  of  no  real  advantage  to  either."  June  20  the  Riksdag  was 
convened  in  extraordinary  session  to  take  under  advisement  the 
situation.  Dreading  war,  this  body  eventually  decided  to  sanction 
negotiations  looking  toward  a  separation,  provided,  however,  that  the 


578  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Norwegian  people,  either  through  the  agency  of  a  newly  elected  Stor- 
thing or  directly  by  referendum,  should  avow  explicitly  their  desire 
for  independence.  During  a  recess  of  the  Riksdag  a  Norwegian  pleb- 
iscite was  taken,  August  13,  with  the  result  that  368,211  votes  were 
cast  in  favor  of  the  separation  and  but  184  against  it.  Two  weeks 
later  eight  commissioners  representing  the  two  states  met  at  Karlstad, 
in  Sweden,  and  negotiated  a  treaty,  signed  September  23,  wherein  the 
terms  of  the  separation  were  specifically  fixed.  This  instrument, 
approved  by  the  Storthing  October  9  and  by  the  reassembled  Riksdag 
October  16,  provided  for  the  establishment  of  a  neutral,  unfortified 
zone  on  the  common  frontier  south  of  the  parallel  61°  and  stipulated 
that  all  differences  between  the  two  nations  which  should  prove  im- 
possible of  adjustment  by  direct  negotiation  should  be  referred  to  the 
permanent  court  of  arbitration  at  the  Hague,  provided  such  differ- 
ences should  not  involve  the  independence,  integrity,  or  vital  interests 
of  either  nation.  October  27  King  Oscar  formally  relinquished  the 
Norwegian  crown. 

III.    THE  NORWEGIAN  CONSTITUTION — CROWN  AND  MINISTRY 

638.  The  Revised  Fundamental  Law. — In  Norway  there  was  wide- 
spread sentiment  in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  a  republic.  The 
continuance  of  monarchy  was  regarded,  however,  as  the  course  which 
might  be  expected  to  meet  with  most  general  approval  throughout 
Europe,  and  in  a  spirit  of  concilation  the  Storthing  tendered  to  King 
Oscar  an  offer  to  elect  as  sovereign  a  member  of  the  Swedish  royal 
family.  The  offer  was  rejected;  whereupon  the  Storthing  selected  as 
a  candidate  Prince  Charles,  second  son  of  the  then  Crown  Prince 
Frederick  of  Denmark,  the  late  King  Frederick  VIII.  November  1 2 
and  13,  1905,  the  Norwegian  people,  by  a  vote  of  259,563  to  69,264, 
ratified  the  Storthing's  choice,  the  advocates  of  a  republic  record- 
ing some  33,000  votes.  The  new  sovereign  was  crowned  at  Trondh- 
jem  June  22,  1906.  By  assuming  the  title  of  Haakon  VII.  he  pur- 
posely emphasized  the  essential  continuity  of  the  present  Norwegian 
monarchy  with  that  of  mediaeval  times.1 

1  Haakon  VI.  reigned  1343-1380,  shortly  before  the  Union  of  Kalmar.  For  brief 
accounts  of  the  relations  of  Sweden  and  Norway  under  the  union  see  Bain,  Scan- 
dinavia, Chap.  17;  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chap.  24,  XII.,  Chap,  n; 
Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  G6nerale,  X.,  Chap.  18;  XI.,  Chap.  12;  XII.,  Chap.  7. 
The  best  general  treatise  is  A.  Aall  and  G.  Nikol,  Die  Norwegische-schwedische 
Union,  ihr  Bestehen  und  ihre  Losung  (Breslau,  1912).  From  the  Norwegian  point 
of  view  the  subject  is  well  treated  in  F.  Nansen,  Norge  og  Foreningen  med  Sverige 
(Christiania,  1905),  in  translation,  Norway  and  the  Union  with  Sweden  (London, 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  579 

The  fundamental  law  of  Norway  to-day  is  the  Eidsvold  constitution 
of  April,  1814,  revised,  November  4  following,  to  comport  with  the 
conditions  of  the  union  with  Sweden.  The  original  instrument  was 
not  only  democratic  in  tone,  but  doctrinaire.  With  little  in  the  nature 
of  native  institutions  upon  which  to  build,  the  framers  laid  hold  of 
features  of  the  French,  English,  American,  and  other  foreign  systems, 
in  the  effort  to  transplant  to  Norwegian  soil  a  body  of  political  forms 
and  usages  calculated  to  produce  a  high  order  of  popular  government. 
No  inconsiderable  portion  of  these  forms  and  usages  survived  the  re- 
vision enforced  by  the  failure  to  achieve  national  independence.  Of 
this  portion,  however,  several  proved  impracticable,  and  constitutional 
amendments  after  1814  were  numerous.  Upon  the  establishment  of 
independence  in  1905  the  fundamental  law  was  modified  further  by 
the  elimination  from  it  of  all  reference  to  the  former  Swedish  affiliation. 
The  constitution  to-day  comprises  one  hundred  twelve  articles,  of 
which  forty-six  deal  with  the  executive  branch  of  the  government, 
thirty-seven  with  citizenship  and  the  legislative  power,  six  with  the 
judiciary,  and  twenty-three  with  matters  of  a  miscellaneous  character. 
The  process  of  amendment  is  appreciably  more  difficult  than  that  by 
which  changes  may  be  introduced  in  the  Swedish  instrument.1  Pro- 
posed amendments  may  be  presented  in  the  Storthing  only  during  the 
first  regular  session  following  a  national  election,  and  they  may  be 
adopted  only  at  a  regular  session  following  the  ensuing  election,  and 
by  a  two-thirds  vote.  It  is  required,  furthermore,  that  such  amend- 
ments "shall  never  contravene  the  principles  of  the  constitution,  but 
shall  relate  only  to  such  modifications  in  particular  provisions  as  will 
not  change  the  spirit  of  the  instrument."  2 

1905);  from  the  Swedish,  in  K.  Nordlung,  Den  svensk-norska  krisen  (Upsala  and 
Stockholm,  1905),  in  translation,  The  Swedish-Norwegian  Union  Crisis,  A  History 
with  Documents  (Stockholm,  1905).  Worthy  of  mention  are  R.  Pillons,  L'Union 
scandinave  (Paris,  1899);  A.  Mohn,  La  Suede  et  la  Evolution  norvegienne  (Geneva 
and  Paris,  1906);  and  Jordan,  La  separation  de  la  Suede  et  de  la  Norwege  (Paris, 
1906).  A  useful  survey  is  P.  Woultrin,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  Jan.  15 
and  March  15,  1906. 

1  See  p.  589. 

*Art.  112.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  143.  An  English  version  of  the 
Norwegian  constitution  is  printed  in  Dodd,  ibid.,  II.,  123-143,  and  in  H.  L.  Braek- 
stad,  The  Constitution  of  the  Kingdom  of  Norway  (London,  1905).  The  standard 
treatise  on  the  Norwegian  system  of  government  is  T.  H.  Aschehoug,  Norges 
Nuvaerende  Statsforfatning  (2d  ed.,  Christiania,  1891-1893);  but  a  more  available 
work  is  an  earlier  one  by  the  same  author,  Das  Staatsrecht  der  vereinigten  Konig- 
reiche  Schweden  und  Norwegen  (Freiburg,  1886),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch. 
The  most  recent  and,  on  the  whole  the  most  useful,  treatise  is  B.  Morgenstierne, 
Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Norwegen  (Tubingen,  1911). 


580  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

639.  The  Crown  and  the  Council. — The  government  of  Norway, 
like  that  of  Sweden  and  of  Denmark,  is  in  form  a  limited  hereditary 
monarchy.    The  popular  element  in  it  is  both  legally  and  actually 
more  considerable  than  in  the  constitutional  system  of  either  of  the 
sister  Scandinavian  states;  none  the  less,  the  principle  of  monarchy  is 
firmly  entrenched,  and,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  not  even  the  overturn 
of  1905  endangered  it  seriously.    The  constitution  contains  provisions 
respecting  the  succession  to  the  throne,  the  conduct  of  affairs  during 
a  minority,  and  the  establishment  of  a  regency,  which  need  not  be 
recounted  here,  but  which  are  designed  to  meet  every  possible  con- 
tingency.   In  the  event  of  the  absolute  default  of  a  legal  successor  the 
Storthing  is  empowered  to  elect. 

Supreme  executive  authority  is  vested  in  the  king,  who  must  be  an 
adherent  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  who  at  his  accession  is  re- 
quired to  take  oath  in  the  presence  of  the  Storthing  to  govern  in  con- 
formity with  the  constitution  and  laws.  Associated  with  the  king  is  a 
Council  of  State,  upon  which,  since  the  king  may  be  neither  censured 
nor  impeached,  devolves  responsibility  for  virtually  all  executive  acts. 
The  Council  consists  of  a  minister  of  state,  or  premier,  and  at  least 
seven  other  members.  All  are  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  all  must 
be  Norwegian  citizens  not  less  than  thirty  years  of  age  and  adherents 
of  the  established  Lutheran  faith.  The  king  may  apportion  the  busi- 
ness of  state  among  the  councillors  as  he  desires.  There  are  at  present, 
in  addition  to  the  ministry  of  state,  eight  ministerial  portfolios,  i.  e., 
Foreign  Affairs,  Justice,  Worship  and  Instruction,  Agriculture,  Labor, 
Finance,  Defense,  and  Commerce,  Navigation  and  Industry.  All 
ministers  are  regularly  members  of  the  Storthing,  though  by  the  con- 
stitution the  crown  is  authorized  for  special  reasons  to  add  to  the 
Council  members  who  possess  no  legislative  seats.  The  heir  to  the 
throne,  if  eighteen  years  of  age,  is  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  Council, 
but  without  vote  or  responsibility. 

640.  The  Exercise  of  Executive  Powers. — Most  of  the  powers  which 
are  possessed  by  the  king  may  be  exercised  by  him  only  in  conjunction 
with  the  Council.    Like  the  fundamental  law  of  Sweden,  that  of  Nor- 
way stipulates  that,  while  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  member  of  the 
Council  to  express  his  opinion  freely,  and  of  the  king  to  give  ear  to  all 
such  opinions,  it  "shall  remain  with  the  king  to  decide  according  to 
his  own  judgment."  1  None  the  less,  the  acts  of  the  crown  are,  as  a 
rule,  those  not  only,  legally,  of  the  king  in  council  but,  actually,  of  the 
king  and  council.   With  the  exception  of  military  commands,  all  orders 
issued  by  the  king  must  be  countersigned  by  the  minister  of  state,  and 

1  Art.  30.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  128. 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  581 

ministers  may  be  impeached  at  any  time  by  the  Odelsthing  before  the 
Rigsret,  or  Court  of  Impeachment;  so  that,  in  effect,  there  is  a  close 
approach  to  the  parliamentary  system  of  ministerial  responsibility. 
Under  these  conditions,  the  crown  appoints  all  civil,  ecclesiastical, 
and  military  officials;  removes  higher  officials  (including  the  ministers) 
without  previous  judicial  sentence;  pardons  offenders  after  conviction; 
regulates  religious  services,  assemblies,  and  meetings;  issues  and  re- 
peals regulations  concerning  commerce,  customs,  industry,  and  public 
order;  and  enforces  the  laws  of  the  realm.  The  king  is  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  land  and  naval  forces,  though  these  forces  may  not  be 
increased  or  diminished,  or  placed  at  the  service  of  a  foreign  sovereign 
or  state,  without  the  consent  of  the  Storthing.  And  the  king  has  the 
power  to  mobilize  troops,  to  commence  war  and  conclude  peace,  to 
enter  into  and  to  withdraw  from  alliances,  and  to  send  and  to  receive 
ambassadors.1 

IV.  THE  STORTHING— POLITICAL  PARTIES 

641.  Electoral  System:  the  Franchise. — Among  the  legislatures  of 
Europe  that  of  Norway  is  unique.  In  structure  it  represents  a  curious 
cross  between  the  principles  of  unicameral  and  bicameral  organization. 
It  comprises  essentially  a  single  body,  which,  however,  for  purely 
legislative  purposes  is  divided  into  two  chambers,  or  sections,  the 
Lagthing  and  the  Odelsthing.  This  division  is  made  subsequent  to 
the  election  of  the  members,  so  that  representatives  are  chosen  simply 
to  the  Storthing  as  a  whole.  The  elections  take  place  every  third  year. 
There  are  forty-one  urban,  and  eighty-two  rural,  districts,  and  every 
district  returns  one  member — a  total  of  123. 

Formerly  the  franchise  rested,  as  in  Sweden,  upon  a  property  qualifi- 
cation; but  by  a  series  of  suffrage  reforms  within  the  past  decade  and 
a  half  it  has  been  brought  about  that  in  respect  to  electoral  privileges 
Norway  is  to-day  the  most  democratic  of  European  countries.  In 
1898  the  Liberal  government  of  Steen  procured  the  enactment  of  a 
measure  which  long  had  occupied  a  leading  place  in  the  programme  of 
the  radical  elements.  By  it  the  parliamentary  franchise  was  conferred 
upon  all  male  citizens  of  a  minimum  age  of  twenty-five  years  who  have 
resided  at  least  five  years  in  Norway  and  who  have  suffered  no  judicial 
impairment  of  civil  rights.  The  effect  was  to  double  at  a  stroke  the 
national  electorate.  In  1901  the  same  Government  carried  an  impor- 
tant bill  by  which  the  suffrage  in  municipal  elections  was  conferred  upon 
male  citizens  without  restriction  (save  that  of  age),  upon  all  unmarried 
1  Arts.  16,  17,  20-26.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  125-127. 


582  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

women  twenty-five  years  of  age  who  pay  taxes  on  an  annual  income 
of  not  less  than  300  kronor,  and  upon  all  married  women  of  similar 
age  whose  husbands  are  taxed  in  equivalent  amounts.  During  ensuing 
years  there  was  widespread  agitation  in  behalf  of  the  parliamentary 
franchise  for  women,  and  the  Liberal  party  made  this  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal items  in  its  programme.  June  14,  1907,  by  a  vote  of  73  to  48, 
the  Storthing  rejected  a  proposal  that  women  be  given  the  parliamen- 
tary franchise  on  the  same  terms  as  men,  but  by  the  decisive  majority 
of  96  to  25  it  conferred  the  privilege  upon  all  women  who  were  in  pos- 
session of  the  municipal  franchise  under  the  law  of  1901.  The  rapidity 
with  which  woman's  suffrage  sentiment  had  developed  is  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  as  late  as  1898  a  proposal  looking  toward  the  including 
of  women  in  the  parliamentary  electorate  had  received  in  the  Storthing 
a  total  of  but  33  votes.  By  the  legislation  of  1907  Norway  became  the 
first  of  European  nations  to  confer  upon  women,  under  any  conditions, 
the  privilege  of  voting  for  members  of  the  national  legislative  body 
and  of  sitting  as  members  of  that  body.  At  the  elections  of  1909,  the 
first  in  which  women  participated,  no  revolutionizing  effects  were  ob- 
served. The  electorate,  however,  was  increased  by  approximately 
300,000,  which  was  somewhat  over  half  of  the  kingdom's  total  female 
population  of  the  requisite  age.1  April  30,  1910,  the  Constitutional 
Committee  of  the  Storthing,  by  a  majority  of  four  to  three,  recommend- 
ed that  parliamentary  suffrage  be  extended  to  women  on  equal  terms 
with  men,  i.  e.,  without  reference  to  tax-paying  qualifications.  The 
recommendation  was  rejected,  but  during  the  next  month  the  Odels- 
thing  voted,  71  to  10,  and  the  Lagthing,  24  to  7,  to  apply  the  principle 
of  it  in  municipal  elections.  Thus  the  municipal  electorate  was  en- 
larged by  approximately  200,000,  and  the  way  was  prepared,  as  many 
believe,  for  the  adoption  eventually  of  the  Committee's  original  recom- 
mendation. Prior  to  an  amendment  of  May  25,  1905,  parliamentary 
elections  were  indirect.  In  the  urban  districts  one  elector  was  chosen 
for  every  fifty  voters,  and  in  the  rural  districts,  one  for  every  one  hun- 
dred. Now,  however,  elections  are  direct.  Each  petty  political  unit 
having  a  municipal  government  of  its  own  comprises  a  voting  precinct. 
If  at  the  first  ballot  no  candidate  in  the  district  receives  a  majority 
of  all  the  votes  cast,  a  second  ballot  is  taken,  when  a  simple  plurality 
is  decisive.  A  noteworthy  feature  of  the  system  is  the  fact  that  voters 
who  on  account  of  illness,  military  service,  or  other  valid  reason,  are 
unable  to  appear  at  the  polls  are  permitted  to  transmit  their  votes  in 
writing  to  the  proper  election  officials. 

1  At  the  election  of  1909  the  total  number  of  parliamentary  electors  was  785,358. 
The  number  of  votes  recorded,  however,  was  but  487,193. 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  583 

642.  Qualifications,  Sessions,  and  Organization. — No  one  may  be 
chosen  a  member  of  the  Storthing  unless  he  or  she  is  thirty  years  of  age, 
a  resident  of  the  kingdom  of  ten  years'  standing,  and  a  qualified  voter 
in  the  election  district  in  which  he  or  she  is  chosen;  but  a  former  mem- 
ber of  the  Council  of  State,  if  otherwise  qualified,  may  be  elected  to 
represent  any  district.1    Under  recent  legislation  every  member  of  the 
Storthing  receives  a  salary  of  three  thousand  kroner  a  year,  in  addition 
to  travelling  expenses.    The  Storthing  meets  in  regular  session  annually, 
without  regard  to  summons  by  the  crown.    The  constitution  fixed  origin- 
ally as  the  date  of  convening  the  first  week-day  after  October  10  of  each 
year;  but,  May  28, 1907,  the  Storthing  adopted  an  amendment  whereby, 
beginning  with  1908,  the  meeting  time  was  changed  to  the  first  week- 
day after  January  10.    For  sufficient  reasons,  an  extraordinary  session 
may  be  convoked  by  the  king  at  any  time.    The  length  of  sessions  is 
indeterminate,  except  that  an  extraordinary  session  may  be  adjourned 
by  the  crown  at  will,  and  no  session,  extraordinary  or  regular,  may  be 
prolonged  beyond  two  months  without  the  king's  consent.    At  its  first 
regular  session  following  a  general  election  the  Storthing  divides  itself 
into  two  chambers.    A  fourth  of  the  membership  is  designated  to  con- 
stitute the  Lagthing,  the  remaining  three-fourths  comprise  the  Odels- 
thing; and  the  division  thus  effected  holds  until  the  succeeding  election. 
Each  chamber  elects  its  own  president,  secretary,  and  other  officers/ 
Sessions  are  public,  and  business  may  not  be  transacted  unless  at 
least  two-thirds  of  the  members  are  present. 

643.  Powers  and  Procedure  of  the  Storthing. — The  powers  of  the 
Storthing,  as  enumerated  in  the  constitution,  include  the  enactment 
and  the  repeal  of  laws;  the  levying  of  taxes,  imposts,  and  duties;  the 
appropriating  and  the  borrowing  of  money;  the  regulating  of  the  cur- 
rency; the  examining  of  treaties  concluded  with  foreign  powers;  the 
inspection  of  the  records  of  the  Council  of  State;  the  making  of  provi- 
sion for  the  auditing  of  the  national  accounts;  and  regulation  of  the 
naturalization  of  foreigners.2    All  bills  are  required  to  be  presented 
first  in  the  Odelsthing,  by  one  of  the  members  of  the  body,  or  by  the 
Government,  through  a  councillor  of  state.    Only  in  the  event  that  a 
measure  passes  the  Odelsthing  is  it  presented  at  all  in  the  Lagthing, 
for  the  sole  function  of  the  smaller  chamber  is  to  act  as  a  check  upon 
the  larger  one.   The  Lagthing  may  either  approve  or  reject  a  bill  which 
the  Odelsthing  submits,  but  may  not  amend  it.    A  measure  rejected  is 
returned,  with  reasons  for  the  rejection.    Three  courses  are  then  open 
to  the  Odelsthing:  to  drop  the  measure,  to  submit  it  in  amended  form, 

1  Arts.  59-64.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  134-135. 
*  Art.  75.    Ibid.,  II.,  136. 


584  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

or  to  resubmit  it  unchanged.  When  a  bill  from  the  Odelsthing  has 
been  twice  presented  to  the  Lagthing,  and  has  been  a  second  time 
rejected,  the  two  chambers  are  convened  in  joint  session,  and  in  this 
consolidated  body  proposals  are  carried  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  All 
questions  pertaining  to  the  revision  of  the  constitution  are  required  to 
be  voted  upon  in  this  manner. 

644.  The  Veto  Power. — A  bill  passed  by  the  Storthing  is  laid  forth- 
with before  the  king.  If  he  approves  it,  the  measure  becomes  law. 
If  he  does  not  approve  it,  he  returns  it  to  the  Odelsthing  with  a  state- 
ment of  his  reasons  for  disapproval.  A  measure  which  has  been  vetoed 
may  not  again  be  submitted  to  the  king  by  the  same  Storthing.  The 
royal  veto,  however,  is  not  absolute.  "If,"  says  the  constitution, 
"a  measure  has  been  passed  without  change  by  three  regular  Storthings 
convened  after  three  separate  successive  elections,  and  separated  from 
each  other  by  at  least  two  intervening  regular  sessions,  without  any 
conflicting  action  having  in  the  meantime  been  taken  in  any  session 
between  its  first  and  last  passage,  and  is  then  presented  to  the  king 
with  the  request  that  his  majesty  will  not  refuse  his  approval  to  a 
measure  which  the  Storthing,  after  the  most  mature  deliberation,  con- 
siders beneficial,  such  measure  shall  become  law  even  though  the  king 
fails  to  approve  it.  .  .  ."*  In  the  days  of  the  Swedish  union  the  pre- 
cise conditions  under  which  the  royal  veto  might  be  exercised  were  the 
subject  of  interminable  controversy.  In  respect  to'  ordinary  legisla- 
tion the  stipulations  of  the  constitution  were  plain  enough,  but  in  respect 
to  measures  which  in  essence  comprised  constitutional  amendments 
the  silence  of  that  instrument  afforded  room  for  wide  differences  of 
opinion.  An  especially  notable  conflict  was  that  which  took  place 
in  the  early  eighties  respecting  a  proposal  to  admit  the  Norwegian 
ministers  to  the  Storthing  with  the  privilege  of  participation  in  the 
deliberations  of  that  body.  The  measure  was  passed  by  overwhelm- 
ing majorities  by  three  Storthings  after  three  successive  general  elec- 
tions, and  in  accordance  with  the  constitution,  under  the  Norwegian 
interpretation,  it  ought  thereupon  to  have  been  recognized  as  law. 
The  king,  however,  not  only  refused  to  approve  the  bill,  but  asserted 
firmly  that  his  right  to  exercise  an  absolute  veto  in  constitutional 
questions  was  "above  all  doubt";  and  when  the  Storthing  pronounced 
the  measure  law  without  the  royal  sanction,  both  crown  and  Swedish 
ministry  avowed  that  by  them  it  would  not  be  recognized  as  valid. 
In  the  end  (in  1884)  the  Storthing  won,  but  the  issue  was  revived  upon 
numerous  occasions.  Under  the  independent  monarchy  of  1905  there 
has  been  no  difficulty  of  the  sort;  nor,  in  view  of  the  eminently  pop- 
1  Art.  79.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  137-138. 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  585 

ular  aspect  of  kingship  in  Norway  to-day,  is  such  difficulty  likely  to 
arise. 

645.  Political  Parties:  Liberals  and  Conservatives. — Prior  to  the 
accession  of  Oscar  II.,  in  1872,  the  preponderating  fact  in  the  political 
development  of  the  kingdom  was  the  gradual  growth  of  parliamentary 
power  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of  the  peasantry.  Between 
1814  and  1830  the  business  of  the  Storthing  was  conducted  almost 
wholly  by  members  of  the  upper  and  official  classes,  but  during  the 
decade  1830-1840  the  peasantry  rose  to  the  position  of  a  highly  in- 
fluential class  in  the  public  affairs  of  the  nation.  The  first  of  the  so- 
called  "peasant  Storthings"  was  that  of  1833.  In  it  the  peasant 
representatives  numbered  forty-five,  upwards  of  half  of  the  body. 
Under  the  leadership  of  Ole  Ueland,  who  was  a  member  of  every 
Storthing  between  1833  and  1869,  the  peasant  party  made  its  par- 
amount issue,  as  a  rule,  the  reduction  of  taxation  and  the  practice  of 
economy  in  the  national  finances. 

After  1870  the  intensification  of  the  Swedish-Norwegian  question 
led  to  the  drawing  afresh  of  party  lines,  and  until  the  separation  of 
1905,  the  new  grouping  continued  fairly  stable.  By  the  amalgamation 
of  the  peasant  party,  led  by  Jaabaek,  and  the  so-called  "lawyers" 
party,  led  by  Johan  Sverdrup,  there  came  into  being  in  the  seventies 
a  great  Liberal  party  (the  Venstre,  or  Left)  whose  fundamental  pur- 
pose was  to  safeguard  the  liberties  of  Norway  as  against  Swedish 
aggression.  Until  1884  this  party  of  nationalism  was  obliged  to  con- 
tent itself  with  the  role  of  opposition.  Governmental  control  was 
lodged  as  yet  in  the  Conservatives,  whose  attitude  toward  Sweden 
was  distinctly  conciliatory.  In  1880  the  Conservative  leader,  Freder- 
ick Stang,  resigned  the  premiership,  but  his  successor  was  another 
Conservative,  Selmer.  At  the  elections  of  1882  the  Liberals  obtained 
no  fewer  than  82  of  the  114  seats  in  the  Storthing.  Still  the  Conserva- 
tives refused  to  yield.  In  the  meantime  the  Odelsthing  had  brought 
the  entire  ministry  to  impeachment  before  the  Rigsret  for  having 
advised  the  king  to  interpose  his  veto  to  the  measure  giving  ministers 
seats  in  Parliament.  Early  in  1883  Selmer  and  seven  of  his  colleagues 
were  sentenced  to  forfeiture  of  their  offices,  and  the  remaining  three 
were  fined.  March  n,  1884,  the  king  announced  his  purpose  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  court,  distasteful  to  him  as  it  was,  and  the 
Selmer  cabinet  was  requested  to  resign.  An  attempt  to  prolong  yet 
further  the  tenure  of  the  Conservatives  failed  completely,  and, 
June  23,  1884,  the  king  sent  for  Sverdrup  and  authorized  the  forma- 
tion of  the  first  Liberal  ministry  in  Norwegian  history.  The  principal 
achievement  of  the  new  government  was  the  final  enactment  of  the 


586  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

long-contested  measure  according  parliamentary  seats  to  ministers. 
To  this  project  the  king  at  last  gave  his  consent. 

646.  The  Ministerial  Succession  to  1905. — The  Sverdrup  ministry 
endured  almost  exactly  four  years.    In  1887  the  party  supporting  it 
split  upon  a  question  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  and  at  the  elections  of 
1888  the  Conservatives  obtained  fifty-one  seats,  while  of  the  sixty- 
three  Liberals  returned  not  more  than  twenty-six  were  really  in  sym- 
pathy with  Sverdrup.    July  12,  1889,  Sverdrup  and  his  colleagues  re- 
signed.   Then  followed  a  rapid  succession  of  ministries,  practically 
every  one  of  which  met  its  fate,  sooner  or  later,  upon  some  question 
pertaining  to  the  Swedish  union:  (i)  that  of  Emil  Stang  1  (Conserva- 
tive), July  12,  1889,  to  March  5,  1891;  (2)  that  of  Johannes  Steen 
(Liberal),  which  lasted  until  April,  1893;  (3)  a  second  Stang  min- 
istry, to  February,  1895;  and  (4)  the  coalition  ministry  of  Professor 
Hagerup,  to  February,  1898.    At  the  elections  of  1897  the  Liberals 
won  a  signal  victory,  carrying  seventy-nine  of  the  one  hundred  four- 
teen seats,  and  in  February  of  the  next  year  there  was  established 
a  second  Steen  ministry,  under  whose  direction,  as  has  appeared, 
there  was  carried  the  law  introducing  manhood  suffrage.    Steen  re- 
tired in  April,  1902,  and  another  Liberal  government,  that  of  Blehr, 
held  office  until  October,  1903.    At  the  elections  of  1903  the  Conserva- 
tives and  Moderates  obtained  sixty-three  seats,  the  Liberals  fifty,  and 
the  Socialists  four.    A  second  Hagerup  ministry  filled  the  period  be- 
tween October  23,  1903,  and  March  i,  1905,  and  upon  its  retirement 
there  was  constituted,  under  circumstances  which  involved  tempo- 
rarily the  all  but  complete  annihilation  of  party  lines,  a  coalition 
ministry  under  Christian  Michelsen,  at  whose  hands  was  brought 
about  immediately  the  separation  from  Sweden  and  the  constitutional 
readjustments  of  1905. 

647.  Party   History   Since   the   Separation. — Following   the    sub- 
sidence of  the  excitement  attending  the  separation  the  party  align- 
ments of  earlier  days  tended  rapidly  to  reappear.    The  old  issues, 
however,  had  been  disposed  of,  and  in  then*  place  sprang  up  new  ones, 
largely  social  and  economic  in  character.    At  the  elections  of  1906  the 
subjects  to  which  the  Liberals  gave  most  prominence  were  female 
suffrage,  old  age  pensions,  and  sickness  and  unemployment  insurance. 
The    Michelsen  government,  which   was  essentially  Conservative, 
issued  a  moderate  reform  programme  and,  alleging  that  former  party 
lines  were  obsolete,  called  upon  the  citizens  of  all  classes  for  support. 
The  elections  were  notable  chiefly  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  Social 
Democrats  increased  their  quota  in  the  Storthing  to  eleven.    Despite 

1  Son  of  the  earlier  premier,  Frederick  Stang. 


THE  SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN  UNION— NORWAY  587 

attacks  of  the  more  radical  Left,  the  Michelsen  cabinet  stood  firm 
until  October  28,  1907,  when  the  premier,  by  reason  of  ill  health,  was 
obliged  to  retire.  Lo  viand,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  succeeded; 
but,  March  14,  1908,  on  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence,  his  ministry  was 
overthrown.  A  new  cabinet  was  made  up  thereupon  by  the  Liberal 
leader,  Gunnar  Knudsen.  At  the  elections  of  1909 — the  first  in  which 
women  participated — this  Liberal  government  lost  the  slender 
majority  which  it  had  possessed,  and  January  27,  1910,  it  resigned. 
Prior  to  the  elections  there  were  in  the  Storthing  fifty-nine  Liberals, 
fifty-four  Conservatives  and  Moderates,  and  ten  Social  Democrats. 
Afterwards  there  were  sixty-three  Conservatives  and  Moderates, 
forty-seven  Liberals,  eleven  Social  Democrats,  and  two  Independents. 
The  popular  vote  of  the  Social  Democrats  was  much  in  excess  of  that 
at  any  former  election,  but  it  was  so  distributed  that  the  party  realized 
from  it  but  a  single  additional  legislative  seat.  Upon  the  resignation 
of  Knudsen  the  premiership  was  offered  to  Michelsen,  whose  health, 
however,  precluded  his  accepting  it.  February  i ,  1910,  a  Conservative- 
Moderate  ministry  was  made  up  by  Konow.  February  19, 1912,  it  was 
succeeded  by  another  ministry  of  the  same  type,  under  the  premiership 
of  the  former  president  of  the  Storthing,  Bratlie.  At  the  elections  of 
November  12,  1912,  the  Government  lost  heavily  to  the  Liberals  and 
to  the  Social  Democrats.  The  socialist  quota  now  numbers  twenty- 
three.1 

V.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

648.  The  Courts. — For  the  administration  of  civil  justice  the  king- 
dom of  Norway  is  divided  into  105  districts — eighty  rural  and  twenty- 
five  urban — hi  each  of  which  there  is  a  court  of  first  instance  composed 
of  two  justices  chosen  by  the  people.  There  are  three  higher  tribunals, 
each  with  a  chief  justice  and  two  associates.  At  the  top  stands  the 
Hoiesteret,  or  Supreme  Court,  consisting  of  a  chief  justice  and  six  asso- 
ciates. The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  neither  appealed 
nor  reviewed.  For  the  trial  of  criminal  cases,  as  regulated  by  law 
of  July  i,  1887,  there  exist  two  types  of  tribunals:  (i)  the  Lagmands- 
ret,  consisting  of  a  president  and  ten  jurors  and  (2)  the  Meddomsret, 
consisting  of  a  judge  and  two  non-professional  assistants  chosen  for 
each  case.  There  are  in  the  kingdom  four  Lagdommer,  or  jury  dis- 
tricts, each  divided  into  circuits  corresponding,  as  a  rule,  to  the  coun- 
ties. The  jury  courts  take  cognizance  of  the  more  serious  cases. 

1  A  brief  account  of  Norwegian  political  parties  to  1900  will  be  found  in  Lavisse. 
et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Ge'ne'rale,  XII.,  266-274;  to  1906,  in  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  XII.,  280-290.  For  additional  references  see  pp.  578-579. 


588  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

"No  one,"  the  constitution  stipulates,  "shall  be  tried  except  in  ac- 
cordance with  law  or  punished  except  by  virtue  of  a  judicial  sentence; 
and  examination  by  means  of  torture  is  forbidden."  1  The  members 
of  the  Lagthing,  together  with  those  of  the  Supreme  Court,  comprise 
the  Rigsret,  or  Court  of  Impeachment.  This  tribunal  tries,  without 
appeal,  cases  involving  charges  of  misconduct  in  office  brought  by 
the  Odelsthing  against  members  of  the  Council  of  State,  the  Supreme 
Court,  or  the  Storthing.2 

649.  Local  Government. — For  purposes  of  administration  the  king- 
dom is  divided  into  twenty  regions — the  cities  of  Christiania  and 
Bergen  and  eighteen  Amter,  or  counties.  At  the  head  of  each  is  an 
Amtmand,  or  prefect,  who  is  appointed  by  the  crown.  The  principal 
local  unit  is  the  Herred,  or  commune,  of  which  there  are  upwards  of 
seven  hundred,  mostly  rural  parishes.  As  a  rule,  the  government  of 
the  commune  is  vested  in  a  body  of  twelve  to  forty-eight  representa- 
tives and  a  Formaend,  or  council,  elected  by  and  from  the  representa- 
tives and  comprising  one-fourth  of  their  number.  Every  third  year 
the  representatives  choose  from  among  the  members  of  the  council 
a  chairman  and  a  deputy  chairman;  and,  under  the  presidency  of 
the  Amtmand,  the  chairmen  of  the  rural  communes  within  each  county 
meet  yearly  as  an  Amtsthing,  or  county  diet,  and  adopt  the  budget 
of  the  county.  Since  the  municipal  electoral  law  of  1910  members 
of  the  communal  councils  are  chosen  on  a  basis  of  universal  suffrage 
for  both  men  and  women. 

1  Art.  96.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  141. 

2  Arts.  86-87.    Ibid.,  II.,  139. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN 

I.  THE  CONSTITUTION — THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

650.  The  Fundamental  Laws. — The  constitution  of  the  kingdom  of 
Sweden  is  one  of  the  most  elaborate  instruments  of  its  kind  in  existence. 
It  comprises  a  group  of  fundamental  laws  of  which  the  most  com- 
prehensive is  the  regerings-formen  of  June  6,  1809,  in  114  articles.1 
Closely  related  are  (i)  the  law  of  royal  succession  of  September  26, 
1810;  (2)  the  law  of  July  16,  1812,  on  the  liberty  of  the  press;  and  (3) 
the  law  of  June  26,  1866,  providing  for  a  reorganization  of  the  legisla- 
tive chambers.  The  organs  and  powers  of  government  are  denned  in 
much  detail,  but  there  is  nothing  equivalent  to  the  bill  of  rights  which 
finds  a  place  in  most  European  constitutions.  The  process  of  amend- 
ment is  easy  and  minor  amendments  have  been  frequent.  Amend- 
ments may  originate  with  either  the  crown  or  the  legislative  houses, 
and  any  amendment  which  receives  the  assent  of  the  crown  is  de- 
clared to  be  adopted  if,  after  having  been  proposed  or  approved  by  one 
Riksdag,  it  is  sanctioned  by  the  succeeding  one.  Through  the  re- 
election of  the  lower  chamber,  which  must  intervene  between  the  two 
stages,  the  people  have  some  opportunity  to  participate  in  the  amend- 
ing process.2 

1  See  p.  572. 

2  Arts.  81-82.     Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  240.     In  1908  the  ex-premier 
Staaf  proposed  that  when  the  two  chambers  should  disagree  upon  questions  con- 
cerning the  constitution  and  general  laws  resort  should  be  had  to  a  popular  referen- 
dum; but  the  suggestion  was  negatived  by  the  upper  house  unanimously  and  by 
the  lower  by  a  vote  of  115  to  78.    The  text  of  the  Swedish  constitution,  together 
with  the  supplementary  fundamental  laws  of  the  kingdom,  is  contained  in  W.  Upp- 
strom,  Sveriges  Grundlager  och  konstitutionela  stadgar  jemte  kommunallagarne 
samt  Norges  Grundlov  (6th  ed.,  Stockholm,  1903).    An  English  version  is  printed 
in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  210-251,  and  a  French  one  in  Dareste,  Con- 
stitutions Modernes  (3d  ed.),  II.,  46-114.    The  best  brief  treatise  upon  Swedish 
constitutional  history  is  P.  Fahlbeck,  La  constitution  su&loise  et  le  parlementarisme 
moderne  (Paris,  1905).    The  best  description  of  the  Swedish  government  as  it  was 
a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  is  T.  H.  Aschehoug,  Das  Staatsrecht  der  vereinigten 
konigreiche  Schweden  und  Norwegen  (Freiburg,  1886),  in  Marquardsen's  Hand- 
buch.    The  principal  treatise  in  Swedish  is  C.  Naumann,  Sveriges  statsforfatnings- 
ratt  (2d  ed.,  Stockholm,  1879-1884). 

589 


590  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

651.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry. — At  the  head  of  the  state  stands 
the  king.    The  monarchy  is  hereditary,  and  the  crown  is  transmitted 
in  the  male  line  in  the  order  of  primogeniture.    It  is  required  that  the 
king  shall  belong  invariably  to  the  Lutheran  Church  and  that  at  his 
accession  he  shall  take  an  oath  to  maintain  scrupulously  the  laws  of  the 
land.    With  the  king  is  associated  a  Statsrad,  or  Council  of  State, 
appointed  by  the  crown  "from  among  capable,  experienced,  honest 
persons  of  good  reputation,  who  are  Swedes  by  birth,  and  who  belong 
to  the  pure  evangelical  faith."  1    By  constitutional  requirement  the 
Council  is  composed  of  eleven  members,  one  of  whom  is  designated  by 
the  king  as  minister  of  state  and  president  of  the  council,  or  premier. 
Of   the  eleven  eight  are  heads  of  the  departments,  respectively,  of 
Foreign  Affairs,  Justice,  Land  Defense,  Naval  Defense,  Home  Affairs, 
Finance,  Agriculture,  and  Education  and  Ecclesiastical  Affairs.     The 
president  and  two  other  members  are  ministers  without  portfolio. 

652.  The  Exercise  of  Executive  Powers. — The  powers  of  the  Swed- 
ish executive  are  large.    A  few  are  exercised  by  the  crown  alone;  some 
by  the  crown  in  conjunction  with  a  small  specified  number  of  minis- 
ters; the  majority  by  the  crown  and  entire  ministry  conjointly.    The 
king  acts  independently  as  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  land  and 
naval  forces  of  the  kingdom.    He  may  conclude  treaties  and  alliances 
with  foreign  powers,  after  having  consulted  the  minister  of  state,  the 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  one  other  member  of  the  Council. 
But  if  he  wishes  to  declare  war  or  to  conclude  peace  he  must  convene 
in  special  session  the  full  membership  of  the  Council  and  must  require 
of  each  member  separately  his  opinion.    "The  king  may  then,"  it  is 
stipulated,  "  make  and  execute  such  a  decision  as  he  considers  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  country."  2    In  other  words,  in  such  a  matter 
the  king  is  obliged  to  consult,  but  not  necessarily  to  be  guided  by, 
his  ministerial  advisers. 

In  general,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  this  is  the  principle  which  under- 
lies the  organization  of  the  Swedish  executive.  After  having  been 
prepared  by  one  or  more  of  the  ministers,  projects  are  considered  by 
the  king  in  council;  but  the  right  of  ultimate  decision  rests  with  the 
king.  It  is  thus  that  appointments  to  all  national  offices  are  made, 
titles  of  nobility  are  conferred,  ordinances  are  promulgated,  texts  of 
new  laws  are  framed,  and  questions  of  peace  and  war  are  determined. 
Nominally,  the  ministers  are  responsible  to  the  Riksdag  for  all  acts 
of  the  Government.  But  the  constitution  plainly  states  that  after 
matters  have  been  discussed  in  the  Council  "the  king  alone  shall  have 

1  Art.  4.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  220. 

2  Art.  13.    Ibid.,  223. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  591 

the  power  to  decide."  1  If  the  king's  decision  is  palpably  contrary  to 
the  constitution  or  the  general  laws,  the  ministers  are  authorized  to 
enter  protest.  But  that  is  all  that  they  may  do.  The  ministers  have 
seats  in  the  Riksdag,  where  they  participate  in  debate  and,  in  the 
name  of  the  crown,  initiate  legislation.  But  their  responsibility  lies 
so  much  more  directly  to  the  king  than  to  the  legislature  that  what  is 
commonly  understood  as  the  parliamentary  system  can  hardly  be  said 
to  exist  in  the  kingdom. 

II.  THE  RIKSDAG:  ELECTORAL  SYSTEM 

663.  Establishment  of  the  Bicameral  System,  1866. — Until  past 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  the  Swedish  Riksdag,  or  diet, 
comprised  still  an  assemblage  of  the  four  estates  of  the  realm — the 
nobles,  the  clergy,  the  burghers,  and  the  peasants.     Throughout 
several  decades  a  preponderating  political  question  was  that  of  sub- 
stituting for  this  essentially  mediaeval  arrangement  a  modern  bicam- 
eral legislative  system.    In  1840  the  Riksdag  itself  insisted  upon  a 
change,  but  the  king,  Charles  XIV.,  refused  to  give  his  assent.    Dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Oscar  I.  (1844-1859)  several  proposals  were  forth- 
coming, but  none  met  with  acceptance.    It  was  left  to  Charles  XV. 
(1859-1872),  in  collaboration  with  his  able  minister  of  justice,  Baron 
Louis  Gerhard  de  Geer,  to  effect  the  much-needed  reform.    In  Janu- 
ary,  1863,  the  Government  submitted  to  the  Estates  a  measure 
whereby  there  was  to  be  constituted  a  Riksdag  of  two  chambers — an 
upper  one,  which  should  be  essentially  an  aristocratic  senate,  and  a 
lower,  whose  members  should  be  elected  triennially  by  the  people. 
In  1865  all  of  the  four  estates  acted  favorably  upon  the  bill  and, 
January  22,  1866,  the  measure  was  promulgated  by  the  crown  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  the  kingdom.    September  i, 
1866,  there  were  held  the  first  national  elections  under  the  new  system. 
Since  1866  the  upper  chamber  has  represented  principally  the  old 
estates  of  the  nobles  and  clergy,  and  the  lower  has  comprised  the  com- 
bined representatives  of  the  townsmen  and  peasants.    The  one  has 
been  conservative,  and  even  aristocratic;  the  other,  essentially  dem- 
ocratic.   But  the  reform  has  contributed  greatly  to  the  breaking  up  of 
the  ancient  rigidity  of  the  Swedish  constitution  and  has  opened  the 
way  for  a  parliamentary  leadership  on  the  part  of  the  commons  which 
was  impossible  so  long  as  each  of  four  orders  was  in  possession  of  an 
equal  voice  and  vote  in  legislative  business. 

664.  The  Upper  Chamber. — The  membership  of  both  houses  of  the 
Riksdag  is  wholly  elective,  that  of  the  upper  indirectly,  and  that  of 

1  Art.  9.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  221. 


592  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

the  lower  directly,  by  the  people.  The  upper  house  consists  of  150 
members  chosen  by  ballot,  after  the  principle  of  proportional  represen- 
tation, for  a  term  of  six  years  by  the  twenty-five  Landsthings,  or  pro- 
vincial representative  assemblies,  and  by  the  corporations  of  five  of 
the  larger  towns — Stockholm,  Goteborg,  Malmo,  Norrkoping,  and 
Ga'fle.  These  electoral  bodies  are  arranged  in  six  groups,  in  one  of 
which  an  election  takes  place  in  September  of  every  year.  The  fran- 
chise arrangements  under  which  they  are  themselves  chosen  are  still 
determined  principally  with  reference  to  property  or  income,  but  they 
are  no  longer  so  undemocratic  as  they  were  prior  to  the  electoral  re- 
form of  1909,  and  whereas  the  elections  were  previously  indirect,  they 
are  now  direct.  No  person  may  be  elected  to  the  upper  chamber  who 
is  not  of  Swedish  birth,  who  has  not  attained  his  thirty-fifth  year,  and 
who  during  three  years  prior  to  his  election  has  not  owned  taxable 
property  valued  at  50,000  kroner  or  paid  taxes  on  an  annual  income 
of  at  least  3,000  kroner.1  A  member  who  at  any  time  loses  these 
qualifications  forthwith  forfeits  his  seat.  Members  formerly  received 
no  compensation,  but  under  the  reform  measure  of  1909  they,  as  like- 
wise members  of  the  lower  chamber,  are  accorded  a  salary  of  1,200 
kroner  for  each  session  of  four  months,  and,  in  the  event  of  an  extra 
session,  10  kroner  a  day,  in  addition  to  travelling  expenses. 

655.  The  Lower  Chamber. — As  constituted  by  law  of  1894,  modified 
by  the  reform  act  of  1909,  the  lower  chamber  consists  of  230  members 
chosen  under  a  system  of  proportional  representation  in  fifty-six 
electoral  districts,  each  of  which  returns  from  three  to  seven  deputies. 
The  number  of  members  to  be  chosen  in  each  of  the  districts  is  de- 
termined triennially,  immediately  preceding  the  balloting.    Prior  to 
the  franchise  law  of  1909  the  suffrage  was  confined,  through  property 
qualifications,  within  very  narrow  bounds.    The  electorate  comprised 
native  Swedes  twenty-five  years  of  age  or  over  who  were  qualified  as 
municipal  voters  and  who  possessed  real  property  to  the  taxed  value 
of  1,000  kroner,  or  who  paid  taxes  on  an  annual  income  of  at  least 
800  kroner,  or  who  possessed  a  leasehold  interest  for  at  least  five  years 
of  a  taxable  value  of  6,000  kroner.    In  1902  it  was  demonstrated  by 
statistics  that  of  the  entire  male  population  of  the  kingdom  over 
twenty-one  years  of  age  not  more  than  thirty-four  per  cent  could  meet 
these  qualifications. 

656.  Beginnings  of  the  Movement  for  Electoral  Reform. — As  early 
as  1895  insistent  demand  began  to  be  made  in  many  quarters  for  an 
extension  of  the  franchise,  and  in  the  Riksdag  of  1896  Premier  Bos- 
trom  introduced  a  moderate  measure  looking  toward  that  end  and  in- 

1  These  amounts  were  substituted  in  1909  for  80,000  and  4,000  respectively. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  593 

volving  the  introduction  of  proportional  representation.  The  bilL 
however,  was  defeated.  Agitation  was  continued,  and  in  1900  the 
Liberals  made  electoral  reform  the  principal  item  of  their  programme. 
In  1901  there  was  passed  a  sweeping  measure  for  the  reorganization  of 
the  army  whereby  were  increased  both  the  term  of  military  service 
and  the  taxes  by  which  the  military  establishment  was  supported.  Ar- 
gument to  the  effect  that  such  an  augmentation  of  public  burdens  ought 
to  be  accompanied  by  an  extension  of  public  privileges  was  not  lost 
upon  the  members  of  the  Conservative  Government,  and  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  Riksdag  of  1902  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  assigned  first 
place  in  the  legislative  calendar  to  a  Suffrage  Extension  bill.  March  1 2 
the  measure  was  laid  before  the  chambers.  The  provisions  of  the  bill 
were,  in  brief,  (i)  that  every  male  citizen,  already  possessed  of  the 
municipal  franchise,  who  had  completed  his  twenty-fifth  year  and  was 
not  in  arrears  in  respect  to  taxes  or  military  service,  should  be  entitled 
to  vote  for  a  member  of  the  lower  national  chamber;  and  (2)  that  every 
voter  who  was  married,  or  had  been  married,  or  had  completed  his 
fortieth  year,  should  be  entitled  to  two  votes.  By  reason  of  its  plural 
voting  features  the  measure  was  not  well  received,  even  though  the 
plural  vote  was  not  made  in  any  way  dependent  upon  property.  It 
was  opposed  by  the  Liberals  and  the  Social  Democrats,  and  members 
even  of  the  Conservative  Government  which  had  introduced  it  with- 
held from  it  their  support.  Amidst  unusual  public  perturbation  the 
Liberals  drew  up  a  counter-proposal,  which  was  introduced  in  the 
lower  chamber  April  16.  It  contemplated  not  simply  one  vote  for  all 
male  citizens  twenty-five  years  of  age  who  possessed  the  municipal 
franchise,  but  also  a  sweeping  extension  of  the  municipal  franchise 
itself.  The  upshot  was  the  adoption  by  the  Riksdag  of  a  proposal  to 
the  effect  that  the  Government,  after  conducting  a  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  entire  subject,  should  submit,  in  1904,  a  new  measure 
based  upon  universal  suffrage  from  the  age  of  twenty-five. 

657.  The  Conservative  Proposal  of  1904. — The  issue  was  post- 
poned, but  agitation,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  Social  Democrats, 
was  redoubled.  February  9,  1904,  the  Government  laid  before  the 
/ower  chamber  a  new  suffrage  bill  embodying  the  recommendations 
of  a  commission  appointed  some  months  previously  to  conduct  the 
investigation  which  had  been  ordered.  The  principal  provisions  of  the 
measure  were  (i)  that  every  male  municipal  taxpayer  who  had  at- 
tained his  twenty-fifth  year,  and  was  not  deficient  in  respect  to  his 
fiscal  or  military  obligations,  should  be  entitled  to  one  vote  for  a 
member  of  the  Chamber;  and  (2)  that  the  230  legislative  seats  should 
be  distributed  among  thirty-three  electoral  districts,  and  should  be 


594  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

filled  by  deputies  chosen  according  to  the  principle  of  proportional 
representation.  The  introduction  of  this  measure  became  the  signal 
for  the  appearance  of  a  multitude  of  projects  dealing  with  the  subject, 
most  of  which  discarded  proportional  representation  but  imposed  still 
fewer  restrictions  upon  the  franchise.  In  the  upper  house  the  Govern- 
ment's proposal,  modified  somewhat  to  meet  the  demands  of  the 
agrarian  interests,  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  93  to  50;  but  in  the  lower 
chamber  the  substance  of  it  was  rejected  by  the  narrow  margin  of  116 
to  108. 

In  view  of  the  continued  support  of  the  upper  house  and  the  meager- 
ness  of  the  opposition  majority  in  the  lower,  the  Government,  at  the 
opening  of  the  Riksdag  of  1905,  submitted  afresh  its  suffrage  bill 
without  material  modification.  Again  there  was  a  deluge  of  counter- 
proposals, the  most  important  of  which  was  that  introduced  March 
1 8  by  Karl  Staaff,  in  behalf  of  the  Liberals,  to  the  effect  that  every 
citizen  in  good  standing  of  the  age  of  twenty-four  should  be  entitled 
to  one  vote,  and  that  the  Chamber  should  consist  of  165  rural  and  65 
urban  members,  chosen  in  single-member  constituencies.  May  3  and 
4  the  Government's  bill  was  carried  in  the  upper  house  by  a  vote  of 
93  to  50,  but  lost  in  the  lower  by  a  vote  of  114  to  109.  Upon  Staaff 's 
project  the  lower  house  was  almost  equally  divided. 

668.  The  Proposal  of  the  Staaff  Government,  1906. — Upon  the 
resignation  of  the  Lundeberg  cabinet,  October  28,  1905,  following  the 
Norwegian  separation,  a  Liberal  ministry  was  made  up  by  Staaff,  and 
when,  January  15,  1906,  the  Riksdag  reassembled  in  regular  session 
the  new  Government  was  ready  to  push  to  a  conclusion  the  electoral 
controversy.  February  24  Premier  Staaff  introduced  an  elaborate 
measure  comprising  an  amplification  of  that  which  had  been  brought 
forward  by  him  a  year  earlier.  By  stipulating  that  at  the  age  of 
twenty-four  every  man  of  good  character  should  have  one  vote  the 
scheme  proposed  enormously  to  enlarge  the  quota  of  enfranchised 
citizens,  and  by  apportioning  representatives  among  the  town  and 
country  districts  in  the  ratio  of  65  to  165  it  promised  to  reduce  mate- 
rially the  existing  over-representation  of  the  towns.  It  excluded  from 
the  franchise  bankrupts,  persons  under  guardianship,  and  defaulters 
in  respect  to  military  service;  it  required  for  election  at  the  first  ballot, 
though  not  at  the  second,  an  absolute  majority;  it  stipulated  that 
a  rearrangement  of  constituencies,  in  accordance  with  population, 
should  be  made  every  nine  years  by  the  king.  It  gave  no  place  to  the 
principle  of  proportional  representation  which  had  appeared  in  the 
proposals  of  the  Conservative  ministries  of  1904  and  1905;  and  while 
favorable  mention  was  made  of  female  suffrage,  the  authors  of  the 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  595 

measure  avowed  the  opinion  that  the  injection  of  that  issue  at 
the  present  moment  would  endanger  the  entire  reform  programme. 
Amidst  renewed  public  demonstrations  the  usual  flood  of  counter- 
projects,  several  stipulating  female  suffrage,  made  its  appearance. 
The  upper  chamber,  dominated  by  the  Conservatives,  held  out  for 
proportional  representation,  and,  May  14,  it  negatived  the  Staaff 
proposal  by  a  vote  of  125  to  18.  The  day  following  the  bill  was  passed 
in  the  lower  chamber  by  a  majority  of  134  to  94,  and  a  little  later 
proportional  representation  was  rejected  by  130  votes  to  98. 

669.  A  Compromise  Bill  Adopted,  1907. — Upon  the  Conservative 
Government  of  Lindman  which  succeeded  devolved  the  task  of  framing 
a  measure  upon  which  the  two  chambers  could  unite.  A  new  bill 
made  its  appearance  February  2,  1907.  Its  essential  provisions  were 
(i)  that  the  members  of  the  lower  chamber  should  be  elected  by  man- 
hood suffrage  (with  the  limitations  specified  in  the  Liberal  programme 
of  1906)  and  proportional  representation;  (2)  that  the  number  of 
electoral  districts  should  be  fixed  at  fifty-six,  each  to  return  from  three 
to  seven  members;  (3)  that  members  of  the  upper  chamber  should  be 
elected  by  the  provincial  Landsthings  and  the  municipal  councils 
for  six  years  instead  of  nine  as  hitherto,  and  by  proportional  repre- 
sentation; and  (4)  that  the  municipal  suffrage,  which  forms  the  basis 
of  the  elections  to  the  Landsthing,  should  be  democratized  in  such  a 
manner  that,  whereas  previously  a  wealthy  elector  might  cast  a  max- 
imum of  100  votes  in  the  towns  and  5,000  in  the  rural  districts,1  hence- 
forth the  maximum  of  votes  which  might  be  cast  by  any  one  elector 
should  be  forty.  By  the  Liberals  and  Social  Democrats  this  measure 
was  denounced  as  inadequate,  although  on  all  sides  it  was  admitted 
that  the  changes  introduced  by  it  were  so  sweeping  as  to  amount  to 
a  positive  revision  of  the  constitution.  The  spokesmen  of  the  Liberal 
Union  reintroduced  the  Staaff  bill  of  1906,  and  the  Social  Democrats 
brought  forward  a  new  measure  which  accorded  a  prominent  place  to 
female  suffrage.  February  8  the  two  chambers  elected  a  joint  com- 
mittee to  investigate  and  report  upon  the  Government's  project. 
Various  amendments  were  added  to  the  bill,  e.  g.,  one  whereby  mem- 
bers of  the  upper  chamber  henceforth  should  receive  an  emolument 
for  their  services,  and  eventually,  May  14,  the  measure  was  brought 
to  a  vote.  Despite  the  apprehensions  of  the  Government,  it  was  car- 
ried. In  the  lower  house  the  vote  was  128  to  98;  in  the  upper,  no 
to  29. 

1  Under  the  prevailing  system,  each  elector  in  the  towns  had  one  vote  for  every 
100  kroner  income,  subject  to  a  limit  of  100  votes;  each  one  in  the  country  had  ten 
votes  for  every  100  kroner  income,  subject  to  a  limit  of  5,000  votes. 


596  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

660.  Final  Enactment,  1909:  Woman's  Suffrage. — The  measure 
comprised  a  series  of  constitutional  amendments,  and,  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  in  such  cases,  it  remained  in  abeyance  until  a 
newly  elected  Riksdag  (chosen  in  1908  and  assembled  in  1909)  should 
have  had  an  opportunity  to  take  action  upon  it.  In  the  Riksdag  of 
1908  ex-Premier  Staaff  introduced  a  measure  granting  female  suffrage 
in  parliamentary  elections  and  extending  it  in  municipal  elections. 
But  both  chambers  negatived  this  and  every  other  proposal  offered 
upon  the  subject,  preferring  to  support  the  Government  in  its  purpose 
to  keep  the  issue  of  woman's  suffrage  in  the  background  until  the 
reforms  of  1907  should  have  been  carried  to  completion.  Early  in  the 
session  of  1909  the  "preliminary  resolution"  of  1907  was  given  the  final 
approval  of  the  chambers.  The  Liberals,  being  now  interested  prin- 
cipally in  the  woman's  suffrage  propaganda,  did  not  combat  the  meas- 
ure, so  that  the  majorities  for  its  adoption  were  overwhelming. 

The  enactment  of  this  piece  of  legislation  constitutes  a  landmark  in 
Swedish  political  history.  Through  upwards  of  a  decade  the  question 
of  franchise  reform  had  overshadowed  all  other  public  issues  and  had 
distracted  attention  from  various  pressing  problems  of  state.  De- 
nounced still  by  the  extremists  of  both  radical  and  conservative 
groups,  the  new  law  was  hailed  by  the  mass  of  the  nation  with  the  most 
evident  satisfaction.1  The  question  of  woman's  suffrage  remains.  At 
the  elections  of  1908  the  Liberal  party  emulated  the  Social  Democrats 
in  the  incorporation  of  this  project  in  its  programme,  and,  April  21, 
1909,  the  Constitutional  Committee  of  the  Riksdag  recommended 
the  adoption  of  a  measure  whereby  women  should  be  accorded  the 
parliamentary  suffrage  and  eligibility  to  sit  as  members  of  either  cham- 
ber. In  May,  1911,  the  essentials  of  this  recommendation  were  ac- 
cepted by  the  lower  chamber  by  a  vote  of  120  to  92,  but  by  the  upper 
they  were  rejected  overwhelmingly.  At  the  opening  of  the  Riksdag  of 
1912  the  Speech  from  the  Throne  announced  the  purpose  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  introduce  a  measure  for  the  enfranchisement  of  women,  and 
1  In  the  main,  the  scheme  of  proportional  representation  adopted  in  Sweden  is 
similar  to  that  in  operation  in  Belgium  (see  pp.  542-545).  Electors  are  expected  to 
write  at  the  head  of  their  ballot  papers  the  name  or  motto  of  their  party.  The 
papers  bearing  the  same  name  or  emblem  are  then  grouped  together,  the  numbers 
in  each  group  are  ascertained,  and  the  seats  available  are  allotted  to  these  groups 
in  accordance  with  the  d'Hondt  rule,  irrespective  of  the  number  of  votes  obtained 
by  individual  candidates.  The  candidate  receiving  the  largest  number  of  votes  is 
declared  elected.  The  papers  on  which  his  name  appears  are  then  marked  down  to 
the  value  of  one-half,  the  relative  position  of  the  remaining  candidates  is  ascertained 
afresh,  and  the  highest  of  these  is  declared  elected,  and  so  on.  Unlike  the  Belgian 
system,  the  Swedish  plan  provides  for  the  allotment  of  but  a  single  seat  at  a  time. 
Humphreys,  Proportional  Representation,  296-313. 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  597 

during  the  session  the  promise  was  redeemed  by  the  bringing  forward  of 
a  bill  in  accordance  with  whose  terms  every  Swede,  without  distinction 
of  sex,  over  twenty-four  years  of  age  and  free  from  legal  disabilities, 
may  vote  for  members  of  the  lower  chamber. 


III.  THE  RIKSDAG  IN  OPERATION — POLITICAL  PARTIES 

661.  Organization  and  Procedure. — By  the  Riksdag  law  of  1866 
the  king  is  required  to  summon  the  chambers  annually  and  empowered 
to  convene  extraordinary  sessions  as  occasion  may  demand.     It  is 
within  the  competence  of  the  king  in  council  to  dissolve  either  or  both 
of  the  chambers,  but  in  such  an  event  a  general  election  must  be  or- 
dered forthwith,  and  the  new  Riksdag  is  required  to  be  assembled 
within  three  months  after  the  dissolution.1    The  president  and  vice- 
presidents  of  both  houses  are  named  by  the  crown;  otherwise  the  cham- 
bers are  permitted  to  choose  their  officials  and  to  manage  their  affairs 
independently.    It  is  specifically  forbidden  that  either  house,  or  any 
committee,  shall  deliberate  upon  or  decide  any  question  in  the  presence 
of  the  sovereign.    The  powers  of  the  Riksdag  cover  the  full  range  of 
civil  and  criminal  legislation;  but  no  measure  may  become  law  without 
the  assent  of  the  crown.    In  other  words,  the  veto  which  the  king  pos- 
sesses is  absolute.    At  the  same  time,  the  king  is  forbidden,  save  with 
the  consent  of  the  Riksdag,  to  impose  any  tax,  to  contract  any  loan,  to 
dispose  of  crown  property,  to  alienate  any  portion  of  the  kingdom,  to 
change  the  arms  or  flag  of  the  realm,  to  modify  the  standard  or  weight  of 
the  coinage,  or  to  introduce  any  alteration  in  the  national  constitution. 
Measures  may  be  proposed,  not  only  by  the  Government,  but  by  mem- 
bers of  either  house.    The  relations  between  the  two  houses  are  pecul- 
iarly close.    At  each  regular  session  there  are  constituted  certain  joint 
committees  whose  function  is  the  preparation  and  preliminary  con- 
sideration of  business  for  the  attention  of  both  chambers.    Most  im- 
portant among  these  committees  is  that  on  laws,  which,  in  the  language 
of  the  constitution,  "elaborates  projects  submitted  to  it  by  the  houses 
for  the  improvement  of  the  civil,  criminal,  municipal,  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal laws." 2    Other  such  committees  are  those  on  the  constitution,  on 
finance,  on  appropriations,  and  on  the  national  bank. 

662.  Powers. — The  stipulations  of  the  constitution  which  relate  to 
finance  are  precise.    "The  ancient  right  of  the  Swedish  people  to  tax 
themselves,"  it  is  affirmed,  "shall  be  exercised  by  the  Riksdag  alone."  3 

1  Art.  109.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  249. 
'Art.  53.    Ibid.,  II.,  234. 
3  Art.  57.    Ibid.,  234. 


5Q8  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

The  king  is  required  at  each  regular  session  to  lay  before  the  Riksdag 
a  statement  of  the  financial  condition  of  the  country  in  all  of  its  as- 
pects, both  income  and  expenses,  assets  and  debts.  It  is  made  the  duty 
of  the  Riksdag  to  vote  such  supplies  as  the  treasury  manifestly  needs 
and  to  prescribe  specifically  the  objects  for  which  the  separate  items 
of  appropriation  may  be  employed;  also  to  vote  two  separate  amounts 
of  adequate  size  to  be  used  by  the  king  in  emergency  only,  in  the  one 
instance  in  the  event  of  war,  in  the  other,  when  "absolutely  necessary 
for  the  defense  of  the  country,  or  for  other  important  and  urgent  pur- 
poses." 

Finally,  the  Riksdag  is  authorized  and  required  to  exercise  a  super- 
visory vigilance  in  relation  to  the  several  branches  of  the  governmental 
system.  One  of  the  functions  of  the  Constitutional  Committee  is  that 
of  inspecting  the  records  of  the  Council  of  State  to  determine  whether 
there  has  been  any  violation  of  the  constitution  or  of  the  general  laws; 
and  in  the  event  of  positive  findings  the  Committee  may  institute 
proceedings  before  the  Riksratt,  or  Court  of  Impeachment.  At  every 
regular  session  the  Riksdag  is  required  to  appoint  a  solicitor-general, 
ranking  equally  with  the  attorney-general  of  the  crown,  with  authority 
to  attend  the  sessions  of  any  of  the  courts  of  the  kingdom,  to  examine 
all  judicial  records,  to  present  to  the  Riksdag  a  full  report  upon 
the  administration  of  justice  throughout  the  nation,  and,  if  necessary, 
to  bring  charges  of  impeachment  against  judicial  officers.  Every  third 
year  the  Riksdag  appoints  a  special  commission  to  determine  whether 
all  of  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  "deserve  to  be  retained  in 
their  important  offices."  Every  third  year,  too,  a  commission  of  six 
is  constituted  which,  under  the  presidency  of  the  solicitor-general, 
overhauls  the  arrangements  respecting  the  liberty  of  the  press.1 

663.  Political  Parties:  Military  and  Tariff  Questions. — In  Sweden, 
as  in  European  countries  generally,  the  party  alignment  which  lies  at 
the  root  of  contemporary  politics  is  that  of  Conservatives  and  Lib- 
erals. Much  of  the  time,  however,  within  the  past  half-century  party 
demarcations  have  been  vague  and  shifting,  being  determined  largely 
in  successive  periods  by  the  rise  and  disappearance  of  various  prepon- 
derating public  issues.  The  first  great  question  upon  which  party 
affiliations  were  shaped  after  the  accession  of  Oscar  II.  in  1872  was 
that  of  national  defense.  The  army  and  navy  were  recognized  at  that 
time  to  be  hopelessly  antiquated,  and  the  successive  Conservative 
ministries  of  the  seventies  were  resolved  upon  greatly  increased 
expenditures  in  the  interest  of  military  and  naval  rehabilitation. 
Against  this  programme  was  set  squarely  that  of  rigid  economy, 
1  Arts.  96-100.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  244-245. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  599 

urged  by  the  strongly  organized  Landtmannapartiet,  or  Agricultural 
party,  representing  the  interests  of  the  landed  proprietors,  large  and 
small,  of  the  kingdom.  The  Landtmannapartiet  was  founded  in  1867, 
immediately  following  the  reconstitution  of  the  Riksdag  under  the  law 
of  1866,  and  through  several  decades  it  comprised  the  dominating 
element  in  the  lower  chamber,  in  addition  to  possessing  at  times 
no  inconsiderable  amount  of  influence  in  the  upper  one.  Throughout 
the  period  covered  by  the  Conservative  ministry  of  Baron  de  Geer 
(1875-1880)  and  the  Agricultural  party's  government  under  Arvid 
Posse  (1880-1883)  there  was  an  all  but  unbroken  deadlock  between  the 
upper  chamber,  dominated  by  the  partisans  of  military  expenditure, 
and  the  lower,  dominated  equally  by  the  advocates  of  tax-reduction. 
It  was  not  until  1885  that  a  ministry  under  Themptander  succeeded 
in  procuring  the  enactment  of  a  compromise  measure  increasing  the 
obligation  of  military  service  but  remitting  thirty  per  cent  of  the  land 
taxes.  By  this  legislation  the  military  and  tax  issues  were  put  in  the 
way  of  eventual  adjustment. 

Already  there  had  arisen  a  new  issue,  upon  which  party  lines  were 
chiefly  to  be  drawn  during  the  later  eighties  and  earlier  nineties.  This 
was  the  question  of  the  tariff.  The  continued  distress  of  the  agrarian 
interests  after  1880,  arising  in  part  from  the  competition  of  foreign 
foodstuffs,  suggested  to  the  landed  interests  of  Sweden  that  the  nation 
would  do  well  to  follow  in  the  path  already  entered  upon  by  Germany. 
The  consequence  was  the  rise  of  a  powerful  protectionist  party,  op- 
posed by  a  free  trade  party  with  which  were  identified  especially  the 
merchant  classes.  In  1886  the  agrarians  procured  a  majority  in  the 
lower  chamber,  and  by  1888  they  were  in  control  of  both  branches. 
The  free  trade  Themptander  ministry  was  thereupon  replaced  by  the 
protectionist  ministry  of  Bildt,  under  which,  in  1888,  there  were  intro- 
duced protective  duties  on  cereals,  and  later,  in  1891-1892,  on  manu- 
factured commodities.  Step  by  step,  the  customs  policy  developed  by 
Sweden  during  the  middle  of  the  century  was  reversed  completely. 

664.  Politics  Since  1891. — July  10,  1891,  the  Conservative  Erik 
Gustaf  Bostrom,  became  premier,  and  thereafter,  save  for  a  brief 
interval  covered  by  the  von  Otter  ministry  (September,  1900,  to 
July,  1902)  this  able  representative  of  the  dominant  agrarian  interests 
continued  uninterruptedly  at  the  helm  until  the  Norwegian  crisis  in 
the  spring  of  1905.  With  the  elimination,  however,  of  the  tariff  issue 
from  the  field  of  active  politics,  Premier  Bostrom  adopted  an  attitude 
on  public  questions  which,  on  the  whole,  was  essentially  independent. 
In  the  later  nineties  there  arose  two  problems,  neither  entirely  new, 
which  were  destined  long  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Government 


6oo  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

almost  to  the  exclusion  of  all  things  else.  One  of  these  was  the  re- 
adjustment  with  Norway.  The  other  was  the  question  of  electoral 
reform.  The  one  affected  considerably  the  fate  of  ministries,  but  did 
not  alter  appreciably  the  alignment  of  parties;  the  other  became  the 
issue  upon  which  party  activity  largely  turned  through  a  number  of 
years.  All  parties  from  the  outset  professed  to  favor  electoral  reform, 
but  upon  the  nature  and  extent  of  such  reform  there  was  the  widest 
difference  of  sentiment  and  policy.  During  the  course  of  the  contest 
upon  this  issue  the  Liberal  party  tended  to  become  distinctly  more 
radical  than  it  had  been  in  the  nineties;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
the  rise  of  the  Social  Democrats  to  parliamentary  importance  falls 
almost  entirely  within  the  period  covered  by  the  electoral  controversy. 
The  first  Social  Democratic  member  of  the  Riksdag  was  elected  in 
1896.  From  1906  to  1911  the  Conservative  ministry  of  Lindman, 
supported  largely  by  the  landholding  elements  of  both  chambers, 
maintained  steadily  its  position.  At  the  elections  of  1908  the  Liberals 
realized  some  gains,  and  at  those  of  1911  both  they  and  the  Social 
Democrats  cut  deeply  into  the  Conservative  majority.  When,  in 
September,  1911,  it  appeared  that  the  Liberals  had  procured  102  seats 
in  the  lower  chamber,  the  Social  Democrats  64,  and  the  Conservatives 
but  64,  the  Lindman  government  promptly  resigned  and  a  new 
ministry  was  made  up  by  the  Liberal  leader  and  ex-premier  Staaff. 
The  invitation  which  was  extended  the  Social  Democrats  to  partici- 
pate in  the  forming  of  the  ministry  was  declined.  In  October  the 
upper  chamber  was  dissolved,  for  the  first  time  in  Swedish  history, 
and  at  the  elections  which  were  concluded  November  30  the  Liberals 
and  Social  Democrats  realized  another  distinct  advance.  Before  the 
elections  the  chamber  contained  116  Conservatives,  30  Liberals,  and 
4  Social  Democrats;  following  them  the  quotas  were,  respectively,  87, 
51,  and  I2.1 

IV.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

666.  The  Courts. — In  theory  the  judicial  power  in  Sweden,  being 
lodged  ultimately  in  the  crown,  is  indistinguishable  from  the  execu- 
tive; in  practice,  however,  it  is  essentially  independent.  The  constitu- 
tion regulates  with  some  minuteness  the  character  of  the  principal 
tribunal,  the  Hogsta  Domstolen,  or  Supreme  Court,  but  leaves  the  or- 
ganization of  the  inferior  courts  to  be  determined  by  the  king  and  the 
Riksdag.  The  Supreme  Court  consists  of  eighteen  "councillors  of 
justice"  appointed  by  the  crown  from  among  men  of  experience, 

1  V.  Pinot,  Le  parlementarisme  su6dois,  in  Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire, 
Sept.  10,  1912. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SWEDEN  60 1 

honesty,  and  known  legal  learning.  The  functions  of  the  court  are 
largely  appellate,  but  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  the  event  that  a 
request  is  made  of  the  king  by  the  lower  courts,  or  by  officials,  respect- 
ing the  proper  interpretation  of  a  law,  the  Supreme  Court  is  authorized 
to  furnish  such  interpretation,  provided  the  subject  is  a  proper  one 
for  the  consideration  of  the  courts.  Cases  of  lesser  importance  may 
be  heard  and  decided  in  the  Supreme  Court  by  five,  or  even  four,  mem- 
bers, when  all  are  in  agreement.  In  more  important  cases  at  least 
seven  judges  must  participate.  When  the  king  desires  he  may  be 
present,  and  when  present  he  possesses  two  votes  in  all  cases  heard 
and  decided.  When  the  question  is  one  of  legal  interpretation  he  is 
entitled  to  two  votes,  whether  or  not  he  actually  attends  the  pro- 
ceedings. All  decisions  are  rendered  in  the  name  of  the  king.  The 
inferior  tribunals  comprise  212  district  courts,  or  courts  of  first  in- 
stance, and  three  higher  courts  of  appeal  (hof ratter),  situated  at 
Stockholm,  Jonkb'ping,  and  Kristianstad.  In  the  91  urban  districts 
the  court  consists  of  the  burgomaster  and  at  least  two  aldermen;  in  the 
121  rural  districts,  of  a  judge  and  twelve  elected  and  unpaid  peasant 
proprietors  serving  as  jurymen.  No  person  occupying  judicial  office 
may  be  removed  save  after  trial  and  judgment. 

666.  Local  Government. — The  kingdom  is  divided  into  twenty- 
five  administrative  provinces  or  counties  (l&n}.1  The  principal  execu- 
tive official  in  each  is  a  landshofding,  or  prefect,  who  is  appointed  by 
the  crown  and  assisted  by  a  varying  number  of  bailiffs  and  sub-officials. 
Each  province  has  a  Landsthing,  or  assembly,  which  meets  for  a  few 
days  annually,  in  September,  under  the  presidency  of  a  member  desig- 
nated by  the  crown.  All  members  are  elected  directly  by  the  voters 
of  the  towns  and  rural  districts,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of 
proportional  representation,  and  under  a  body  of  franchise  regulations 
which,  while  much  liberalized  in  1909,  still  is  based  essentially  upon 
property-holding.  The  function  of  the  Landsthing  is  the  enactment  of 
provincial  legislation  and  the  general  supervision  of  provincial  affairs. 
In  a  few  of  the  larger  towns — Stockholm,  Goteborg,  Malmo,  Norr- 
kb'ping,  and  Gaffe — these  functions  are  vested  in  a  separate  municipal 
council.  The  conditions  under  which  purely  local  affairs  are  admin- 
istered are  regulated  by  the  communal  laws  of  March  21,  1862.  Each 
rural  parish  and  each  town  comprises  a  self-governing  commune.  Each 
has  an  assembly,  composed  of  all  taxpayers,  which  passes  ordinances, 
elects  minor  officials,  and  decides  petty  questions  of  purely  communal 
concern. 

1  One  of  these  comprises  simply  the  city  of  Stockholm. 


PART  IX.— THE  IBERIAN  STATES 

CHAPTER  XXXIII 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN 

I.  THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  CONSTITUTIONALISM 

667.  The  Napoleonic  Regime  and  the  National  Resistance. — It  was 

the  fortune  of  the  kingdom  of  Spain,  as  it  was  that  of  the  several 
Italian  states,  to  be  made  tributary  to  the  dominion  of  Napoleon; 
and  in  Spain,  as  in  Italy,  the  first  phase  of  the  growth  of  constitutional 
government  fell  within  the  period  covered  by  the  Corsican's  ascend- 
ancy. Starting  with  the  purpose  of  punishing  Portugal  for  her  re- 
fusal to  break  with  Great  Britain,  Napoleon,  during  the  years  1807- 
1808,  worked  out  gradually  an  Iberian  policy  which  comprehended 
not  only  the  subversion  of  the  independent  Portuguese  monarchy  but 
also  the  reduction  of  Spain  to  the  status  of  a  subject  kingdom.  In 
pursuance  of  this  programme  French  troops  began,  in  February,  1808, 
the  occupation  of  Spanish  strongholds,  including  the  capital.  The 
aged  Bourbon  king,  Charles  IV.,  was  induced  to  renounce  his  throne 
and  the  crown  prince  Ferdinand  his  claim  to  the  succession,  and, 
June  6,  Joseph  Bonaparte,  since  1806  king  of  Naples,  was  designated 
sovereign.  An  assembly  of  ninety-one  pliant  Spanish  notables,  con- 
vened at  Bayonne  in  the  guise  of  a  junta,  was  influenced  both  to 
"petition"  the  Emperor  for  Joseph's  appointment  and  to  ratify  the 
projet  of  a  Napoleonic  constitution. 

Napoleon's  seizure  of  the  crown  of  Spain  was  an  act  of  sheer  violence, 
and  from  the  outset  Joseph  was  considered  by  his  subjects  a  simple 
usurper.  The  establishment  of  the  new  regime  at  Madrid  became  the 
signal  for  a  national  uprising  which  not  only  compelled  the  Emperor 
seriously  to  modify  his  immediate  plans  and  to  lead  in  person  a  cam- 
paign of  conquest,  but  contributed  in  the  end  to  the  collapse  of  the  en- 
tire Napoleonic  fabric.  Upon  the  restoration  of  some  degree  of  order 
there  followed  the  introduction  of  a  number  of  reforms — the  sweeping 
away  of  the  last  vestiges  of  feudalism,  the  abolition  of  the  tribunal  of 
the  Inquisition,  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  monasteries  and  con- 

603 


604  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

vents  by  a  third,  and  the  repeal  of  all  internal  customs.  But  the 
position  occupied  by  the  alien  sovereign  was  never  other  than  pre- 
carious. At  no  time  did  he  secure  control  over  the  whole  of  the  coun- 
try, and  during  the  successive  stages  of  the  Peninsular  War  of  1807— 
1814  his  mastery  of  the  situation  diminished  gradually  to  the  vanishing 
point.  At  the  outset  the  principal  directing  agencies  of  the  opposition 
were  the  irregularly  organized  local  juntas  which  sprang  up  in  the 
various  provinces,  but  before  the  end  of  1808  there  was  constituted  a 
central  junta  of  thirty-four  members,  and  in  September,  1810,  there 
was  convened  at  Cadiz  a  general  Cortes — not  three  estates,  as  tradition 
demanded,  but  a  single  assembly  of  indirectly  elected  deputies  of  the 
people. 

668.  The  Constitution  of  1812. — Professing  allegiance  to  the  captive 
Ferdinand,  the  Cortes  of  1810  addressed  itself  first  of  all  to  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war  and  the  maintenance  of  the  national  independence,  but 
after  a  year  it  proceeded  to  draw  up  a  constitution  for  a  liberalized 
Bourbon  monarchy.  Save  the  fundamental  decree  upon  which  rested 
nominally  the  government  of  Joseph  Bonaparte,  this  constitution, 
promulgated  March  19, 1812,  was  the  first  such  instrument  in  Spanish 
history.  It  was,  of  course,  the  first  to  emanate  from  Spanish  sources. 
Permeating  it  throughout  were  the  radical  principles  of  the  French 
constitution  of  1791.  It  asserted  unreservedly  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  and  proclaimed  as  inviolable  the  principle  of  equality  before 
the  law.  Executive  authority  it  intrusted  to  the  king,  but  the  mon- 
arch was  left  so  scant  a  measure  of  independence  that  not  only  might 
he  never  prorogue  or  dissolve  the  Cortes,  but  not  even  might  he  marry 
or  set  foot  outside  the  kingdom  without  express  permission.  For 
the  actual  exercise  of  the  executive  functions  there  were  created  seven 
departments,  or  ministries,  each  presided  over  by  a  responsible  official. 
The  fundamental  powers  of  state  were  conferred  upon  a  Cortes  of 
one  chamber,  whose  members  were  to  be  elected  for  a  term  of  two 
years  by  indirect  manhood  suffrage.  Various  features  of  the  French 
constitution  which  experience  had  shown  to  be  ill-advised  were  re- 
produced blindly  enough,  among  them  the  ineligibility  of  members  of 
the  legislative  body  for  re-election  and  the  disqualification  of  ministers 
to  sit  as  members.  The  government  of  the  towns  was  intrusted  to  the 
inhabitants;  that  of  the  provinces,  to  a  governor  appointed  by  the  cen- 
tral authorities  and  an  assembly  of  deputies  popularly  chosen  for 
a  term  of  four  years.  As  the  starting  point  of  Spanish  constitutional 
development  the  fundamental  law  of  1812  is  of  genuine  interest. 
It  is  not  to  be  imagined,  however,  that  the  instrument  reflects  with 
any  degree  of  accuracy  the  political  sentiment  and  ideals  of  the  mass 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  605 

of  the  Spanish  people.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  work  of  a  slender 
democratic  minority,  and  it  was  never  even  submitted  to  the  nation 
for  ratification.  It  was  a  product  of  revolution,  and  at  no  time  was 
there  opportunity  for  its  framers  to  put  it  completely  into  operation.1 
669.  The  Restoration  and  the  Reign  of  Ferdinand  VII. — Upon  the 
fall  of  Napoleon  the  legitimate  sovereign,  under  the  name  of  Ferdi- 
nand VII.,  was  established  forthwith  upon  the  Spanish  throne.  At  one 
time  he  had  professed  a  purpose  to  perpetuate  the  new  constitution,  but 
even  before  his  return  to  Madrid  he  pronounced  both  the  constitution 
and  the  various  decrees  of  the  Cortes  "null  and  of  no  effect,"  and  when 
the  Cortes  undertook  to  press  its  claims  to  recognition  it  found  itself 
powerless.  In  the  restoration  of  absolutism  the  king  was  supported  not 
only  by  the  army,  the  nobility,  and  the  Church,  but  also  by  the  mass 
of  the  people.  For  constitutional  government  there  was  plainly  little 
demand,  and  if  Ferdinand  had  been  possessed  of  even  the  most  ordinary 
qualities  of  character  and  statesmanship,  he  might  probably  have  ruled 
successfully  in  a  perfectly  despotic  manner  throughout  the  remainder 
of  his  life.  As  it  was,  the  reaction  was  accompanied  by  such  glaring 
excesses  that  the  spirit  of  revolution  was  kept  alive,  and  scarcely  a 
twelvemonth  passed  in  the  course  of  which  there  were  not  menacing 
uprisings.  In  January,  1820,  a  revolt  of  unusual  seriousness  began  in  a 
mutiny  at  Cadiz  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers  who  were  being  gathered  for 
service  in  America.  The  revolt  spread  and,  to  save  himself,  the  king 
revived  the  constitution  of  1812  and  pledged  himself  to  a  scrupulous 
observance  of  its  stipulations.  The  movement,  however,  was  doomed 
to  prompt  and  seemingly  complete  failure.  The  liberals  were  disunited, 
and  the  two  years  during  which  the  king  was  virtually  a  prisoner  in 
their  hands  comprised  a  period  of  sheer  anarchy.  The  powers  of  the 
Holy  Alliance,  moreover,  in  congress  at  Verona  (1822),  adopted  a  pro- 
gramme of  intervention,  in  execution  of  which,  in  April,  1823,  the  French 
government  sent  an  army  across  the  Pyrenees  under  the  command  of  the 
Duke  of  Angouleme.  A  six  months'  campaign,  cuhninating  in  the  cap- 
ture of  Cadiz,  whither  the  Cortes  had  carried  the  king,  served  effectively 
to  crush  the  revolution  and  to  reinstate  the  sovereign  completely  in  the 

1  For  brief  accounts  of  the  Napoleonic  regime  in  Spain  see  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  IX.,  Chap,  n  (bibliography,  pp.  851-853);  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire 
Ge"nerale,  IX.,  Chap.  6;  A.  Fournier,  Life  of  Napoleon  the  First,  2  vols.,  (new  ed. 
New  York,  1911),  II.,  Chaps.  14-15; J.  H.  Rose,  Life  of  Napoleon  I.  (London,  1002), 
Chap.  28;  M.  A.  S.  Hume,  Modern  Spain,  1788-1898  (London,  1899),  Chaps.  2-4; 
and  H.  B.  Clarke,  Modern  Spain,  1815-1898  (Cambridge,  1906),  Chap.  i.  Of  the 
numerous  histories  of  the  Peninsular  War  the  most  celebrated  is  W.  Napier,  History 
of  the  War  in  the  Peninsula  and  the  South  of  France,  1807-1814, 10  vols.  (London, 
1828). 


606  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

position  which  he  had  occupied  prior  to  1820.  Then  followed  a  fresh 
period  of  repression,  in  the  course  of  which  the  constitution  of  1812  was 
again  set  aside,  and  throughout  the  remaining  decade  of  the  reign  the 
government  of  the  kingdom  was  both  despotic  and  utterly  unprogres- 


II.  POLITICAL  AND  CONSTITUTIONAL  DEVELOPMENT,  1833-1876 

670.  Maria  Christina  and  the  Estatuto  Real  of  1834.— Ferdinand  VII. 
died  September  29,  1833,  leaving  no  son.  Regularly  since  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Bourbon  dynasty  the  succession  in  Spain  had  been  governed 
by  the  principle  of  the  Salic  Law,  imported  originally  from  France.  But, 
to  the  end  that  the  inheritance  might  fall  to  a  daughter  rather  than  to 
his  brother,  Don  Carlos,  Ferdinand  had  promulgated,  in  1830,  a  Prag- 
matic Sanction  whereby  the  Salic  principle  was  set  aside.  Don  Carlos 
and  his  supporters  refused  absolutely  to  admit  the  validity  of  this  act, 
but  Ferdinand  was  succeeded  by  his  three-year-old  daughter,  Isabella, 
and  the  government  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  queen-mother,  Maria 
Christina  of  Naples,  as  regent.2  Her  administration  of  affairs  lasted  un- 
til 1840.  From  the  constitutional  point  of  view  the  period  was  important 
solely  because,  under  stress  of  circumstances,  the  regent  was  driven  to 
adopt  a  distinctly  liberal  policy,  and,  in  time,  to  promulgate  a  new  con- 
stitutional instrument.  Don  Carlos,  supported  by  the  nobility,  the 
clergy,  and  other  reactionary  elements,  kept  up  a  guerilla  war  by  which 
the  tenure  of  the  "  Christines  "  was  endangered  continuously.  The  re- 
gent was  herself  a  thoroughgoing  absolutist,  but  her  sole  hope  lay  in  the 

1  On  the  period  covered  by  Ferdinand's  reign  see  Cambridge  Modern  History, 
X.,  Chap.  7  (bibliography,  pp.  808-811);  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Mistoire  Generate, 
X.,  Chap.  6;  Clarke,  Modern  Spain,  Chaps.  2-4,  and  Hume,  Modern  Spain,  1788- 
1898,  Chaps.  5-6.    Extended  works  which  touch  upon  the  constitutional  aspects 
of  the  period  include:  H.  Gmelin,  Studien  zur  Spanischen  Verfassungsgeschichte 
des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts  (Stuttgart,  1905);  G.  Diercks,  Geschichte  Spaniens 
(Berlin,  1895);  A.  Borrego,  Historia  de  las  Cortes  de  Espafia  durante  el  siglo  XIX. 
(Madrid,  1885);  and  M.  Calvo  y  Martin,  Regimem  parlamentario  de  Espana  en  el 
siglo  XIX.  (Madrid,  1883).    A  valuable  essay  is  P.  Bancada,  El  sentido  social  de  la 
revolucion  de  1820,  in  Revista  Contempordnea  (August,  1903). 

2  In  the  mediaeval  states  of  Spain  there  was  no  discrimination  against  female 
succession.    The  Spanish  Salic  Law  was  enacted  by  a  decree  of  Philip  V.  in  1713,  at 
the  close  of  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession.    Its  original  object  was  to  prevent 
the  union  of  the  crowns  of  France  and  Spain.    In  view  of  the  change  which  had 
come  in  the  international  situation,  Charles  IV.,  supported  by  the  Cortes,  in  1789 
abrogated  the  act  of  1713  and  re-established  the  law  of  Siete  Partidas  which  per- 
mitted the  succession  of  women.    This  measure  was  recorded  in  the  archives,  but 
was  not  published  at  the  time;  so  that  what  Ferdinand  VII.  did  was  simply  to 
publish,  May  19,  1830,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Queen,  this  pragmatica,  or  law,  of 
1789.    The  birth  of  Isabella  occurred  the  following  October  10. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  607 

support  of  the  liberals,  and  to  retain  that  it  was  necessary  for  her  to 
make  large  concessions.  The  upshot  was  that  in  April,  1834,  she  issued  a 
royal  statute  (Estatuto  Real),  whereby  there  was  established  a  new  type 
of  Cortes,  comprising  two  chambers  instead  of  one.  The  upper  house, 
or  Estamento  de  Proceres,  was  essentially  a  senate;  the  lower,  or  Esta- 
mento  de  Procuradores,  was  a  chamber  of  deputies.  Members  of  the 
Procuradores  were  to  be  elected  by  taxpayers  for  a  term  of  three  years. 
Upon  the  Cortes  was  conferred  power  of  taxation  and  of  legislation; 
but  the  Government  alone  might  propose  laws,  and  the  Cortes,  like  its 
ancient  predecessor,  was  allowed  no  initiative  save  that  of  petitioning 
the  Government  to  submit  measures  upon  particular  subjects.  A 
minimum  of  one  legislative  session  annually  was  stipulated;  but  the 
sovereign  was  left  free  otherwise  to  convoke  and  to  dissolve  the  chambers 
at  will.  Ministers  were  recognized  to  be  responsible  solely  to  the  crown. 

671.  The   Constitution  of   1837. —  Toward   the   establishment   of 
constitutional  government  the  Statute  of  1834  marked  some,  albeit 
small,  advance.    The  Moderados,  or  moderate  liberals,  were  disposed 
to  accept  it  as  the  largest  concession  that,  for  the  present,  could  be 
expected.    But  the  Progressistas,  or  progressives,  insisted  upon  a  re- 
vival of  the  more  democratic  constitution  of  1812,  and  in  1836  the 
regent  was  compelled  by  a  widespread  military  revolt  to  sign  a  decree 
pledging  the  Government  to  this  policy.    A  constituent  Cortes  was 
convoked  and  the  outcome  was  the  promulgation  of  the  constitution 
of  June  17,  1837,  based  upon  the  instrument  of  1812,  but  in  respect 
to  liberalism  standing  midway  between  that  instrument  and  the 
Statute  of  1834.    Like  the  constitution  of  1812,  that  of  1837  affirmed 
the  sovereignty  of  the  nation  and  the  responsibility  of  ministers  to  the 
legislative  body.    On  the  other  hand,  the  Cortes  was  to  consist,  as 
under  the  Statute,  of  two  houses,  a  Senate  and  a  Congress.    The  mem- 
bers of  the  one  were  to  be  appointed  for  life  by  the  crown;  those  of  the 
other  were  to  be  elected  by  the  people  for  three  years.    In  a  number 
of  respects  the  instrument  of  1837  resembled  the  recently  adopted 
constitution  of  Belgium,  even  as  the  Statute  of  1834  had  resembled 
the  French  Charter  of  1814.    In  the  words  of  a  Spanish  historian,  the 
document  of  1837  had  the  two-fold  importance  of  "assuring  the  con- 
stitutional principle,  which  thenceforth  was  never  denied,  and  of 
ending  the  sentiment  of  idolatry  for  the  constitution  of  i8i2.nl 

672.  The  Constitution  of  1846. —  October   12,    1840,   the  regent 
Maria  Christina  was  forced  by  the  intensity  of  civil  discord  to  abdicate 
and  to  withdraw  to  France.    Her  successor  was  General  Espartero, 
leader  of  the  Progressistas  and  the  first  of  a  long  line  of  military  men  to 

1  R.  Altamira,  in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X.,  238. 


608  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

whom  it  has  fallen  at  various  times  to  direct  the  governmental  affairs 
of  the  Spanish  nation.  November  8,  1843,  the  princess  Isabella 
although  yet  but  thirteen  years  old,  was  declared  of  age  and,  under 
the  name  of  Isabella  II.,  was  proclaimed  sovereign.  Her  reign,  cover- 
ing the  ensuing  twenty  years,  comprised  distinctly  an  era  of  stagnation 
and  veiled  absolutism.  Nominally  the  constitution  of  1837  continued 
in  operation  until  1845.  At  that  time  it  was  replaced  by  a  revised  and 
less  liberal  instrument,  drawn  up  by  the  Moderados  with  the  assistance 
of  an  ordinary  Cortes.  The  duration  of  the  Cortes  was  extended  from 
three  to  four  years,  severer  restrictions  upon  the  press  were  established, 
supervision  of  the  local  authorities  was  still  further  centralized,  and 
the  requirement  that  the  sovereign  might  not  marry  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Cortez  was  rescinded.  In  the  course  of  a  revolutionary 
movement  in  1854  there  was  convoked  a  constituent  Cortes,  dominated 
by  Moderates  and  Progressives.  The  constitution  which  this  body 
framed,  comprising  essentially  a  revival  of  the  instrument  of  1837,  was 
never,  however,  put  in  operation.  In  the  end,  by  a  royal  decree  of 
1856,  the  constitution  of  1845  was  amended  and  re-established.  Save 
for  some  illiberal  amendments  of  I857,1  which  were  repealed  in  1864, 
this  instrument  of  1845  continued  in  operation  until  1868.  Through- 
out the  period,  however,  constitutionalism  was  hardly  more  than  a 
fiction.2 

673.  The  Constitution  of  1869:  King  Amadeo. — By  a  revolt  which 
began  in  September,  1868,  the  queen  was  compelled  to  flee  from  the 
country,  and,  eventually,  June  25,  1869,  to  abdicate.  A  provisional 
government  effected  arrangements  for  the  election  of  a  Cortes  by 
manhood  suffrage,  and  this  Cortes,  convened  at  the  capital,  Feb- 
ruary n,  1869,  addressed  itself  first  of  all  to  the  task  of  drafting  a  new 
national  constitution.  A  considerable  number  of  members  advocated 
the  establishment  of  a  republic;  but  for  so  radical  an  innovation  there 
\vas  clearly  no  general  demand,  and  in  the  end  the  proposition  was 
rejected  by  a  vote  of  214  to  71.  June  i  a  constitution  was  adopted 
\vhich,  however,  marked  a  large  advance  in  the  direction  of  liberalism. 
It  contained  substantial  guarantees  of  freedom  of  speech,  freedom  of 
the  press,  liberty  of  religion,  and  the  right  of  petition  and  of  public 
assembly,  and  in  unequivocal  terms  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  was 

1  One  established  conditions  under  which  senatorial  seats  might  be  made  heredi- 
tary. 

2  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X.,  Chap.  7;  XI.,  Chap.  20;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud, 
Histoire  GSnerale,  X.,  Chap.  6;  XI.,  Chap.  9;  Hume,  Modern  Spain,  Chaps.  7-12; 
Clarke,  Modern  Spain,  Chaps.  5-11;    Mariano,  La  Regencia  de  D.  Baldomero 
Espartero  (Madrid,  1870);  J.  Perez  de  Guzman,  Las  Cortes  y  los  Gobiernos  del 
reinado  de  Da  Isabel  II.,  in  La  Espana  Moderna,  1903. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  609 

affirmed  afresh.  A  Cortes  of  two  houses  was  provided  for,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  to  be  chosen  indirectly  by  the  people  through 
electoral  colleges  and  the  provincial  assemblies,  those  of  the  Congress 
to  be  elected  by  manhood  suffrage,  the  only  qualification  for  voting 
being  the  attainment  of  the  a.ge  of  twenty-five  years  and  possession 
of  ordinary  civil  rights. 

Pending  the  selection  of  a  sovereign,  a  regency  was  established  under 
Marshal  Serrano.  Among  the  several  dignitaries  who  were  considered 
— Alfonso  (son  of  the  deposed  Isabella)  the  Duke  of  Montpensier, 
Ferdinand  of  Savoy  (brother  of  King  Victor  Emmanuel  of  Italy), 
King  Luiz  of  Portugal,  Ferdinand  of  Saxony,  Leopold  of  Hohenzollern- 
Sigmaringen,  and  Prince  Amadeo,  duke  of  Aosta,  second  son  of 
Victor  Emmanuel — favor  settled  eventually  upon  the  last  named,  who 
was  elected  November  19,  1870,  by  a  vote  of  191  to  120.  At  the  end 
of  1870  the  new  sovereign  arrived  in  Spain,  and  February  2,  1871,  he 
took  oath  to  uphold  the  recently  established  constitution.  From  the 
outset,  however,  his  position  was  one  of  extreme  difficulty.  He  was 
opposed  by  those  who  desired  a  republic,  by  the  Carlists,  by  the  ad- 
herents of  the  former  crown  prince  Alfonso,  and  by  the  clergy;  and 
as  a  foreigner  he  was  regarded  with  indifference,  if  not  antipathy,  by 
patriotic  Spaniards  generally.  February  10,  1873,  wearied  by  the 
turbulence  in  which  he  was  engulfed,  'he  resigned  his  powers  into  the 
hands  of  the  Cortes,  and  by  that  body  his  abdication  was  forthwith 
accepted.  It  is  a  sufficient  commentary  upon  the  political  character 
of  the  reign  to  observe  that  within  the  twenty-four  months  which  it 
covered  there  were  no  fewer  than  six  ministerial  crises  and  three 
general  elections. 

674.  The  Republic  (1873-1876) :  Monarchy  Restored.— The  break- 
down of  the  elective  monarchy,  following  thus  closely  the  overthrow 
of  absolutism,  cleared  the  way  for  the  triumph  of  the  republicans. 
The  monarchist  parties,  confronted  suddenly  by  an  unanticipated 
situation,  were  able  to  agree  upon  no  plan  of  action,  and  the  upshot 
was  that,  by  a  vote  of  258  to  32,  the  Cortes  declared  for  a  republic 
and  decreed  that  the  drafting  of  a  republican  constitution  should  be 
undertaken  by  a  specially  elected  convention.  Although  it  was  true,  as 
Castelar  asserted,  that  the  monarchy  had  perished  from  natural 
causes,  that  the  republic  was  the  inevitable  product  of  existing  cir- 
cumstance, and  that  the  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other  was 
effected  without  bloodshed,  it  was  apparent  from  the  outset  that 
republicanism  had  not,  after  all,  struck  root  deeply.  A  constitution 
was  drawn  up,  but  it  was  at  no  time  really  put  into  operation.  The 
supporters  of  the  new  regime  were  far  from  agreed  as  to  the  kind  of 


6io  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

republic,  federal  or  centralized,  that  should  be  established; l  the  re- 
publican leaders  were  mutually  jealous  and  prone  to  profitless  theoriz- 
ing; the  nation  was  lacking  in  the  experience  which  is  a  prerequisite 
of  self-government.2  At  home  the  republic  was  opposed  by  the 
monarchists  of  the  various  groups,  by  the  clergy,  and  by  the  extreme 
particularists,  and  abroad  it  won  the  recognition  of  not  one  nation 
save  the  United  States.  The  presidency  of  Figueras  lasted  four  months ; 
that  of  Pi  y  Margall,  six  weeks;  that  of  Salmeron,  a  similar  period; 
that  of  Castelar,  about  four  months  (September  7, 1873,  to  January  3, 
1874).  Castelar,  however,  was  rather  a  dictator  than  a  president, 
and  so  was  his  Conservative  successor  Serrano.  By  the  beginning  of 
1874  it  was  admitted  universally  that  the  only  escape  from  the  anoma- 
lous situation  in  which  the  nation  found  itself  lay  in  a  restoration  of  the 
legitimist  monarchy,  in  the  person  of  Don  Alfonso,  son  of  Isabella 
II.  The  collapse  of  the  republic  was  as  swift  and  as  noiseless  as  had 
been  its  establishment.  The  principal  agency  in  it  was  the  army, 
which,  in  December,  1874,  declared  definitely  for  Alfonso,  after  he  had 
pledged  himself  to  a  grant  of  amnesty  and  the  maintenance  of  con- 
stitutional government.  December  31  a  regency  ministry  under  the 
presidency  of  Canovas  was  announced,  and  the  new  reign  began  with 
the  landing  of  the  young  sovereign  at  Barcelona,  January  10,  1875. 
Between  the  premature  and  ineffective  republicanism  of  the  past 
year,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  absolutism  of  a  Carlist  government, 
on  the  other,  the  constitutional  monarchy  of  Alfonso  XII.  seemed  a 
logical,  and  to  the  mass  of  the  Spanish  people,  an  eminently  satisfac- 
tory, compromise.3 

1  Castelar  favored  a  consolidated  and  radical  republic;  Serrano,  a  consolidated 
and  conservative  republic;  Pi  y  Margall,  a  federal  republic,  on  the  pattern  of  the 
United  States;  Pavia,  a  republic  which  should  be  predominantly  military. 

2  In  this  connection  may  be  mentioned  a  remark  of  General  Prim,  one  of  the 
leading  spirits  in  the  provisional  government  of  1868.    When  asked  why  at  that 
time  he  did  not  establish  a  republic  his  reply  was:  "It  would  have  been  a  republic 
without  republicans."    There  was  no  less  a  dearth  of  real  republicans  in  1873-1874. 

3  On  the  revolutionary  and  republican  periods  see  Cambridge  Modern  History 
XI.,  Chap.  20  (bibliography,  pp.  945-949);  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire  Generale, 
XII.,  Chap.  9;  Hume,  Modern  Spain,  Chap.  10;  V.  Cherbuliez,  L'Espagne  politique, 
1868-1873  (Paris,  1874);  W.  Lauser,  Geschichte  Spaniens  von  dem  Sturz  Isabellas, 
1868-1875  (Leipzig,  1877);  E.  H.  Strobel,The  Spanish  Revolution,  1868-1875  (Lon- 
don, 1898);  E.  Rodriguez  Solis,  Historia  del  partido  republicano  espanol  (Madrid, 
1893);  pi  y  Margall,  Amadeo  de  Saboya  (Madrid,  1884);  H.  R.  Whitehouse,  Ama- 
deus,  King  of  Spain  (New  York,  1897).    A  significant  work  is  E.  Castelar,  Historia 
del  movimiento  republicano  en  Europa  (Madrid,  1873-1874).    Special  works  dealing 
with  the  restoration  include  A.  Houghton,  Les  origines  de  la  restauration  des 
Bourbons  en  Espagne  (Paris,  1890);  Diez  de  Tejada,  Historia  de  la  restauraciou 
(Madrid,  1879). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  6ll 


III.  THE  PRESENT  CONSTITUTION 

676.  The  Constitution  Adopted. — The  year  following  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  monarchy  was  consumed  largely  in  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  Carlists  and  the  reorganization  of  the  government.  During 
this  period  Canovas,  at  the  head  of  a  strong  Conservative  and  Clerical 
ministry,  ruled  virtually  as  a  dictator,  and  sooner  or  later  most  vestiges 
of  the  republic  were  swept  away,  while  the  nation  was  won  over 
solidly  to  the  new  order.  At  the  election  of  the  first  Cortes  of  the 
Restoration,  January  22,  1876,  the  principle  of  manhood  suffrage 
was  continued  in  operation,  though  so  docile  did  the  electorate  prove 
that  Canovas  was  able  to  secure,  in  both  chambers,  a  heavy  majority 
which  was  ready  to  vote  at  the  Government's  behest  a  franchise  system 
of  a  much  less  liberal  type.  The  first  important  task  of  this  Cortes  was 
the  consideration  and  adoption  of  a  new  national  constitution.  As  to 
the  sort  of  constitution  most  desirable  there  was,  as  ever,  wide  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  The  Conservatives  favored  a  revival  of  the  in- 
strument of  1845.  The  Liberals  much  preferred  a  restoration  of  that 
of  1869.  A  commission  of  thirty-nine,  designated  May  20,  1875,  by  a 
junta  convened  by  Canovas,  had  evolved  with  some  difficulty  an 
instrument  which  combined  various  features  of  both  of  these  earlier 
documents,  and  by  the  Cortes  of  1876  this  proposed  constitution  was 
at  length  accorded  definite,  though  by  no  means  unanimous,  assent 
(June  30).  This  instrument  was  put  forthwith  into  operation,  and  it 
has  remained  to  this  day,  substantially  without  alteration,  the  funda- 
mental law  of  Spain.  Based  essentially  upon  the  constitution  of  1845, 
it  none  the  less  exhibits  at  many  points  the  influence  of  the  liberal 
principles  which  underlay  the  instrument  of  1869. 

676.  Contents:  Guarantees  of  Individual  Liberty. — In  scope  the 
constitution  is  comprehensive.  Its  text  falls  into  thirteen  "titles" 
and  eighty-nine  articles.  Like  the  constitution  of  Italy,  it  contains 
no  provision  for  its  own  amendment;  but  in  Spain,  as  also  in  Italy, 
the  distinction  between  constituent  and  legislative  powers  is  not 
sharply  drawn  and  a  simple  act  of  the  legislative  body  is  in  practice 
adequate  to  modify  the  working  constitution  of  the  kingdom.  Among 
the  thirteen  titles  one  of  the  most  elaborate  is  that  in  which  are  defined 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  Spanish  subjects  and  of  aliens  resident  in 
Spain.1  Among  rights  specifically  guaranteed  are  those  of  freedom 
of  speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  peaceful  assemblage,  the  formation  of 
associations,  petition,  unrestrained  choice  of  professions,  and  eligibil- 
1  No.  i.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  199-203. 


612  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ity  to  public  offices  and  employments,  "  according  to  merit  and  capac- 
ity." Immunities  guaranteed  include  exemption  from  arrest,  "except 
in  the  cases  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law  " ;  exemption  from 
imprisonment,  except  upon  order  of  a  competent  judicial  official; 
freedom  from  molestation  on  account  of  religious  opinions,  provided 
due  respect  for  "  Christian  morality  "  be  shown; 1  and  exemption  from 
search  of  papers  and  effects  and  from  confiscation  of  property,  save 
by  authority  legally  competent.  It  is  forbidden  that  either  the  military 
or  the  civil  authorities  shall  impose  any  penalty  other  than  such  as 
shall  have  been  established  previously  by  law.  Certain  guarantees, 
i.  e.,  those  respecting  arrest,  imprisonment,  search,  freedom  of  domicile, 
freedom  of  speech  and  press,  assemblage,  and  associations,  may,  under 
provision  of  the  constitution,  be  suspended  throughout  the  kingdom 
or  in  any  portion  thereof,  but  only  when  demanded  by  the  security 
of  the  state,  and  then  only  temporarily  and  by  means  of  a  specific 
law.  In  no  case  may  any  other  guarantee  which  is  named  in  the  con- 
stitution be  withdrawn,  even  temporarily.  When  the  Cortes  is  not  in 
session  the  Government  may  suspend,  through  the  medium  of  a  royal 
decree,  any  one  of  the  guarantees  which  the  Cortes  itself  is  authorized 
to  suspend,  but  at  the  earliest  opportunity  such  a  decree  must  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  Cortes  for  ratification.  It  need  hardly  be  pointed  out 
that  the  opportunity  for  the  evasion  of  constitutionalism  which  is 
created  by  this  power  of  suspension  is  enormous,  and  anyone  at  all 
familiar  with  the  history  of  public  affairs  in  Spain  would  be  able  to 
cite  numerous  occasions  upon  which,  upon  pretexts  more  or  less 
plausible,  the  guarantees  of  the  fundamental  law  have  been  set  at 
naught.2 

1  By  Article  n  Roman  Catholicism  is  declared  to  be  the  religion  of  the  state. 
"The  nation,"  it  is  stipulated  further,  "binds  itself  to  maintain  this  religion  and 
its  ministers."    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  201. 

2  An  official  text  of  the  constitution  of  1876  is  published  by  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment under  the  title  Constituci6n  politica  de  la  monarchia  Espanola  y  leyes  com- 
plementarias  (4th  ed.,  Madrid,  1901).    The  texts  of  all  of  the  Spanish  constitutions 
of  the  nineteenth  century  are  printed  in  the  first  volume  of  Muro  y  Martinez,  Con- 
stituciones  de  Espafia  y  de  las  demas  naciones  de  Europa,  con  la  historia  general 
de  Espafia  (Madrid,  1881);  also  in  the  first  volume — Constituciones  y  reglamentos 
(Madrid,  1906) — of  a  collection  projected  by  the  Spanish  Government  under  the 
title  of  Publicaciones  Parlamentarias.    English  versions  of  the  instrument  of  1876 
appear  in  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  LXVII.   (1875-1876),  118  ff.,  and 
Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  199-216.    An  excellent  brief  treatise  on  Spanish 
constitutional  development  is  H.  Gmelin,  Studien  zur  spanischen  Verfassungsge- 
schichte  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts  (Stuttgart,  1905);  on  Spanish  constitu- 
tional law,  M.  Torres  Campos,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigreichs  Spanien  (Freiburg, 
1889),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch;  on  Spanish  administrative  law,  V.  Santamaria 
de  Paredes,  Curso  de  derecho  administrativo  (sth  ed.,  Madrid,  1898);  and  on  the 


THE   GOVERNMENT  OF   SPAIN  613 


IV.  THE  CROWN  AND  THE  MINISTRY 

677.  The  Rules  of  Succession. — Executive  power  in  the  kingdom  is 
vested  solely  in  the  crown,  although  in  practice  it  devolves  to  a  large 
degree  upon  the  council  of  ministers.    Kingship  is  hereditary,  and  in 
regulation  of  the  succession  the  constitution  lays  down  the  general 
principle  that  an  elder  line  shall  always  be  preferred  to  younger  ones; 
in  the  same  line,  the  nearer  degree  of  kinship  to  the  more  remote;  in 
the  same  degree  of  kinship,  the  male  to  the  female;  in  the  same  sex, 
the  older  to  the  younger  person.    By  the  original  constitution  Al- 
fonso XII.  was  declared  to  be  the  legitimate  sovereign,  and  provision 
was  made  that  if  the  line  of  legitimate  descendants  of  Alfonso  should 
be  extinguished,  his  sisters  should  succeed  in  the  established  order; 
then  his  aunt  (the  sister  of  his  mother  Isabella  II.)  and  her  legitimate 
descendants;  and,  finally,  the  descendants  of  his  uncles,  the  brothers 
of  Ferdinand  VII.1    It  will  be  recalled  that  the  Pragmatic  Sanction 
of  1830  abolished  in  Spain  the  Salic  principle  and  restored  the  ancient 
right  of  females  to  inherit.    Spam  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  few  European 
states  in  which  this  right  exists.    At  the  same  time,  as  has  been  pointed 
out,  when  the  degree  of  kinship  is  identical,  preference  is  accorded  the 
male.    Thus  it  came  about  that  the  present  sovereign,  Alfonso  XIII., 
the  posthumous  son  of  Alfonso  XII.,  took  precedence  over  his  two 
sisters,  both  of  whom  were  older  than  he,  and  the  elder  of  whom, 
Maria  de  las  Mercedes,  actually  was  queen  from  the  death  of  her 
father,  November  25,  1885,  until  the  birth  of  her  brother,  May  17, 
i886.2 

678.  Regencies. — Any  member  of  the  royal  family  who  may  be 
incapable  of  governing,  or  who  by  his  conduct  may  have  forfeited  his 
claim  to  the  good- will  of  the  nation,  may  be  excluded  from  the  succes- 

comparative  aspects  of  Spanish  institutions,  R.  de  Oloriz,  La  Constituci6n  espanola 
comparada  con  las  de  Inglaterra,  Estados-Unidos,  Francia  y  Alemania  (Valencia, 
1904).  More  extended  works  of  importance  include  V.  Santamaria  de  Paredes, 
Curso  de  derecho  politico  (6th  ed.,  Madrid,  1898),  and  A.  Posada,  Tratado  de 
derecho  administrative  (Madrid,  1897-1898).  A  monumental  collection  of  laws  re- 
lating to  Spanish  administrative  affairs  is  M.  Martinez  Alcubilla,  Diccionario  de  la 
administraci6n  Espanola,  Peninsular  y  Ultramarina  ($th  ed.,  1892-1894),  to  which  is 
added  annually  an  appendix  containing  texts  of  the  most  recent  laws  and  decrees. 
Special  treatises  of  importance  are  M.  M.  Calvo,  Regimen  parlamentario  en  Espana 
(Madrid,  1883);  J.  Costa,  Oligarquia  y  Caciquismo  como  la  forma  actual  del 
Gobierno  en  Espana  (Madrid,  1903);  and  Y.  Guytot, '  Involution  politique  et 
sociale  de  PEspagne  (Paris,  1899).  Mention  may  be  made  of  R.  Fraoso,  Las  con- 
stituciones  de  Espana,  in  Remsta  de  Espana,  June-July,  1880. 

1  Arts.  59-61.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  211. 

2  She  was,  however,  but  a  child  five  years  of  age. 


6i4  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

sion  by  law.  Disputes  concerning  rights  or  facts  involved  in  the  suc- 
cession are  to  be  adjusted  by  law,  and  in  event  that  all  of  the  family 
lines  mentioned  in  the  constitution  should  be  extinguished  it  would 
become  the  duty  of  the  Cortes  to  make  such  disposal  of  the  crown 
as  might  be  adjudged  "most  suitable  to  the  nation."1  Both  the 
sovereign  and  the  heir  presumptive  are  forbidden  to  marry  any  person 
who  by  law  is  excluded  from  the  succession.  They  are,  indeed,  for- 
bidden to  contract  a  marriage  at  all  until  after  the  Cortes  shall  have 
examined  and  approved  the  stipulations  involved.  The  age  of  major- 
ity of  the  sovereign  is  fixed  at  sixteen  years.  When  the  king  is  a 
minor,  his  father  or  his  mother,  or,  in  default  of  a  living  parent,  the 
relative  who  stands  next  in  the  order  of  succession,  is  constituted 
regent,  provided  always  that  such  person  be  a  Spaniard  at  least 
twenty  years  of  age  and  not  by  law  excluded  from  the  succession. 
Should  there  be  no  one  upon  whom  the  regency  may  lawfully  devolve, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Cortes  to  appoint  a  regency  of  one,  three,  or  five 
persons.  If,  at  any  time,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Cortes,  the  sovereign 
becomes  incapacitated  to  rule,  a  regency  is  required  to  be  vested  in 
the  crown  prince,  provided  he  be  sixteen  years  of  age.  In  default  of  a 
qualified  crown  prince  the  regency  devolves  upon  the  queen;  and  in 
default  of  both  son  and  queen,  upon  a  person  determined  in  accordance 
with  the  rules  already  mentioned. 

679.  Powers  of  the  Crown. — The  powers  of  the  crown  are  of  the  sort 
common  among  continental  monarchies.  By  the  constitution  they 
are  thrown  into  two  groups,  i.  e.,  those  which  may  be  exercised  freely 
and  independently  and  those  which  may  be  exercised  only  upon  the 
authorization  of  a  special  law.  Enumeration  of  the  first  group  begins 
with  the  sweeping  statement  that  "the  power  of  executing  the  laws  is 
vested  in  the  king,  and  his  authority  extends  to  everything  which 
conduces  to  the  preservation  of  public  order  at  home  and  the  security 
of  the  state  abroad,  in  conformity  with  the  constitution  and  the  laws.  "2 
Powers  specifically  named  include  the  approval  and  promulgation  of 
the  laws;  the  issuing  of  decrees,  regulations,  and  instructions  designed 
to  facilitate  the  execution  of  the  laws;  the  appointment  and  dismissal 
of  ministers  and  of  civil  officials  generally;  command  of  the  army  and 
navy  and  direction  of  the  land  and  naval  forces;  the  declaration  of  war 
and  the  conclusion  of  peace; 3  the  conduct  of  diplomatic  and  com- 
mercial relations  with  foreign  states;  the  pardoning  of  offenders;  the 

1  Art.  62.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  IL,  212. 

2  Art.  50.    Ibid.,  IL,  210. 

3  It  is  required  that  subsequent  to  a  declaration  of  war  or  the  conclusion  of  peace 
the  king  shall  submit  to  the  Cortes  a  report  accompanied  by  pertinent  documents. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  615 

control  of  the  coinage;  and  the  conferring  of  honors  and  distinctions 
of  every  kind.  Of  powers  which  the  sovereign  may  exercise  only  in 
pursuance  of  authority  specially  conferred  by  law  there  are  five,  as 
follows:  alienation,  cession,  or  exchange  of  any  portion  of  Spanish 
territory;  incorporation  of  new  territory;  admission  of  foreign  troops 
into  the  kingdom;  ratification  of  all  treaties  which  are  binding  individ- 
ually upon  Spaniards,  and  of  treaties  of  offensive  alliance  which  stip- 
ulate the  payment  of  subsidies  to  any  foreign  power,  or  which  relate 
especially  to  commerce;  and  abdication  of  the  crown  in  favor  of  the 
heir-presumptive. 

680.  The  Ministry:  Organization  and  Functions. — In  Spain,  as  in 
constitutional  states  generally,  the  powers  appertaining  to  the  ex- 
ecutive are  exercised  in  the  main  by  the  ministers.  Concerning  the 
ministry  the  constitution  has  little  to  say.  It,  in  truth,  assumes, 
rather  than  makes  specific  provision  for,  the  ministry's  existence. 
It  confers  upon  the  crown  the  power  freely  to  appoint  and  to  dismiss 
ministers;  it  stipulates  that  ministers  may  be  senators  or  deputies 
and  may  participate  in  the  proceedings  of  both  legislative  chambers, 
but  may  vote  only  in  the  chambers  to  which  they  belong;  and,  most 
important  of  all,  it  enjoins  that  ministers  shall  be  responsible,  and 
that  no  order  of  the  king  may  be  executed  unless  countersigned  by  a 
minister,  who  thereby  assumes  personal  responsibility  for  it.  This 
principle  of  ministerial  responsibility,  which  found  its  first  expression 
in  Spain  in  the  constitution  of  1812,  is  enforced  nowadays  suffi- 
ciently, at  least,  to  ensure  the  nation,  through  the  Cortes,  some  actual 
control  over  the  policies  and  measures  of  the  executive.  Of  ministries 
there  are  at  present  nine,  as  follows:  Foreign  Affairs;  Justice;  Finance; 
War;  Marine;  Interior;  Public  Instruction  and  Fine  Arts;  Commerce; 
and  Public  Works.  At  the  head  of  the  ministerial  council  is  a  presi- 
dent, or  premier,  who,  under  royal  approval,  selects  his  colleagues, 
but  ordinarily  assumes  himself  no  portfolio.  It  is  the  function  of  the 
ministers  not  only  to  serve  as  the  heads  of  executive  departments  and 
to  explain  and  defend  in  the  legislative  chambers  the  acts  of  the  gov- 
ernment, but,  in  their  collective  capacity,  to  formulate  measures  for 
presentation  to  the  Cortes  and,  especially,  to  submit  every  year  for 
examination  and  discussion  a  general  budget,  accompanied  by  a 
scheme  of  taxation  or  other  proposed  means  of  meeting  prospective 
expenditures.  In  each  chamber  there  is  reserved  for  the  ministers  of 
the  crown  a  front  bench  to  the  right  of  the  presiding  official.  The 
practice  of  interpellation  exists,  although  ministries  rarely  retire  by 
reason  of  a  vote  of  censure  arising  therefrom.  But  any  minister  may 
be  impeached  by  the  Congress  before  the  Senate.  In  Spain,  as  in 


616  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

France  and  Italy,  the  parliamentary  system  is  nominally  in  operation; 
but,  as  in  the  countries  mentioned,  the  multiplicity  and  instability  of 
party  groups  render  the  workings  of  the  system  totally  different  from 
what  they  are  in  Great  Britain.  Ministries  are  invariably  composite 
rather  than  homogeneous  in  political  complexion,  with  the  conse- 
quence that  they  are  unable  to  present  a  solid  front  or  long  to  retain 
their  hold  upon  the  nation's  confidence. 

V.  THE  CORTES 

681.  The  Senate:  Composition. — The  legislative  powers  of  the  king- 
dom are  vested  in  "the  Cortes,  together  with  the  king."    The  Cortes 
consists  of  two  co-ordinate  chambers,  the  Senate  and  the  Congress  of 
Deputies.    In  the  composition  of  the  Senate  the  prescriptive,  appointive, 
and  elective  principles  are  curiously  intertwined,  the  chamber  containing 
one  group  of  men  who  are  members  in  their  own  right,  another  who  are 
appointed  by  the  crown  and  sit  for  life,  and  a  third  who  are  elected  by 
the  corporations  of  the  state  and  by  the  large  taxpayers.    In  number 
the  first  two  categories  jointly  may  not  exceed  180;  the  third  is  fixed 
definitely  at  that  figure.    In  point  of  fact  the  life  senators  nominated  by 
the  crown  number  100,  while  the  quota  of  prescriptive  members  varies 
considerably.    This  last-mentioned  group  comprises  grown  sons  of  the 
sovereign  and  of  the  heir-presumptive;  the  admirals  of  the  navy  and  the 
captains-general  of  the  army;  the  patriarch  of  the  Indies  and  the  arch- 
bishops; the  presidents  of  the  Council  of  State,  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  Court  of  Accounts,  and  the  Supreme  Councils  of  War  and  Marine, 
after  two  years  of  service;  and  grandees  of  Spain  1  in  their  own  right, 
who  are  not  subjects  of  another  power  and  who  have  a  proved  yearly 
income  of  60,000  pesetas  ($12,000)  derived  from  real  property  of  their 
own,  or  from  rights  legally  equivalent  to  real  property.2 

682.  Appointment  and  Election  of  Senators. — Appointment  of  sena- 
tors by  the  crown  is  made  by  special  decree,  in  which  must  be  stated  the 
grounds  upon  which  each  appointment  is  based.    In  the  selection  of 
appointees  the  sovereign  is  not  entirely  free,  but  since  the  constitution 
designates  no  fewer  than  twelve  classes  from  which  appointments  may 
be  made,  the  range  of  choice  is  large.   Among  the  categories  enumerated 
are  the  presidents  of  the  legislative  chambers;  deputies  who  have  been 
members  of  as  many  as  three  congresses,  or  who  have  served  during  as 
many  as  eight  sessions;  ministers  of  the  crown;  bishops;  grandees;  lieu- 

1  The  rank  of  grandee  (grande)  is  a  dignity  conferred  by  the  sovereign,  either  for 
life  or  as  an  hereditary  honor. 

2  Art.  21.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  204. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  617 

tenant-generals  of  the  army  and  vice-admirals  of  the  navy,  of  two  years' 
standing;  ambassadors,  after  two  years  of  active  service,  and  ministers 
plenipotentiary,  after  four  years;  presidents  and  directors  of  the  half- 
dozen  royal  academies,  and  persons  who  in  point  of  seniority  belong 
within  the  first  half  of  the  list  of  members  of  these  respective  bodies; 
head  professors  in  the  universities,  who  have  held  this  rank  and  have 
performed  the  duties  pertaining  to  it  through  a  period  of  four  years;  and 
a  variety  of  other  administrative,  judicial,  and  professional  function- 
aries. Persons  belonging  to  any  one  of  these  groups,  however,  are  el- 
igible for  appointment  only  in  the  event  that  they  enjoy  an  annual  in- 
come of  7,500  pesetas  ($1,500),  derived  from  property  of  their  own  or 
from  salaries  of  permanent  employments,  or  from  pensions  or  retirement 
allowances.  In  addition  to  the  classes  mentioned  persons  are  eligible 
who  for  two  years  have  possessed  an  annual  income  of  20,000  pesetas, 
or  who  have  paid  into  the  public  treasury  a  direct  tax  of  4,000  pesetas, 
provided  that  in  addition  they  possess  titles  of  nobility,  or  have  been 
members  of  the  Cortes,  provincial  deputies,  or  mayors  in  capitals  of 
provinces  or  in  towns  of  more  than  20,000  inhabitants.  Appointments 
are  made  regularly  for  life. 

The  conditions  under  which  the  quota  of  180  elected  senators  are 
chosen  were  defined  by  a  statute  of  February  8,  1877.  One  senator  is 
chosen  by  the  clergy  in  each  of  the  nine  archbishoprics;  one  by  each  of 
the  six  royal  academies;  one  by  each  of  the  ten  universities;  five  by  the 
economic  societies;  and  the  remaining  150  by  electoral  colleges  in  the  sev- 
eral provinces.  The  electoral  college  is  composed  of  members  of  the 
provincial  deputations  and  of  representatives  chosen  from  among  the 
municipal  councillors  and  largest  taxpayers  of  the  towns  and  municipal 
districts.  But  no  one  may  become  a  senator  by  election  who  would 
be  ineligible,  under  the  conditions  above  mentioned,  to  be  appointed  to  a 
seat  by  the  crown.  And  it  is  required  in  all  cases  that  to  become  a  sen- 
ator one  must  be  a  Spaniard,  must  have  attained  the  age  of  thirty-five, 
must  have  the  free  management  of  his  property,  and  must  not  have  been 
subjected  to  criminal  proceedings,  nor  have  been  deprived  of  the  exercise 
of  his  political  rights.  The  term  of  elected  senators  is  ten  years.  One- 
half  of  the  number  is  renewed  every  five  years;  but  upon  a  dissolution 
of  the  elected  portion  of  the  chamber  by  the  crown,  the  quota  is  renewed 
integrally.1 

683.  The  Congress  of  Deputies:  Composition  and  Election. — The 

lower  legislative  chamber  is  composed  of  deputies  chosen  directly  by  the 

inhabitants  of  the  several  electoral  districts  into  which  the  kingdom  is 

divided.    From  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution  until  1890  the 

1  Arts.  20-26.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  203-206. 


6i8  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

franchise  was  restricted  severely  by  property  qualifications.  A  reform 
bill  which  became  law  June  29,  1890,  however,  re-established  in  effect 
the  scheme  of  manhood  suffrage  which  had  been  in  operation  during 
the  revolutionary  epoch  1869-1875.  Under  the  provisions  of  a  law  of 
August  8,  1907,  by  which  the  electoral  system  was  further  regulated, 
the  franchise  is  conferred  upon  all  male  Spaniards  who  have  attained  the 
age  of  twenty-five,  who  have  resided  in  their  electoral  district  not  less 
than  two  years,  and  who  have  not  been  deprived  judicially  of  their  civil 
rights.1  Except,  indeed,  in  the  case  of  certain  judicial  officials  and  of 
persons  more  than  seventy  years  of  age,  the  exercise  of  the  voting 
privilege  is,  as  in  Belgium  and  in  some  of  the  Austrian  provinces, 
compulsory.  The  constitution  requires  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one 
deputy  for  every  50,000  inhabitants.  The  total  membership  of  the 
Congress  is  at  present  406.  In  the  majority  of  districts  but  a  single 
deputy  is  chosen,  but  in  twenty-eight  of  the  larger  ones  two  or  more  are 
elected  by  scrutin  de  liste,  with  provision  for  the  representation  of  minor- 
ities. In  districts  in  which  two  or  three  deputies  are  to  be  chosen,  each 
elector  votes  for  one  fewer  than  the  number  to  be  elected;  in  districts 
where  from  four  to  seven  are  to  be  chosen,  the  elector  votes  for  two  fewer 
than  the  total  number;  and  where  the  aggregate  number  is  eight  to  ten, 
or  more  than  ten,  he  votes  for  three  or  four  fewer,  respectively.  Any 
Spaniard  who  is  qualified  for  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  is  eligible  for 
election,  and  for  indefinite  re-election,  as  a  deputy,  save  that  no  member 
of  the  clergy  may  be  chosen.  The  term  of  membership  is  five  years, 
though  by  reason  of  not  infrequent  dissolutions  the  period  of  service  is 
actually  briefer.  As  is  true  also  of  senators,  deputies  receive  no  pay 
for  their  services.2 

684.  Sessions  and  Status  of  the  Chambers. — The  Cortes,  consisting 
thus  of  the  Senate  and  the  Congress  of  Deputies,  is  required  by  the 
constitution  to  be  convened  by  the  crown  in  regular  session  at  least 
once  each  year.  Extraordinary  sessions  may  be  held,  and  upon  the 
death  or  incapacitation  of  the  sovereign  the  chambers  must  be  assem- 
bled forthwith.  To  the  crown  belongs  the  power  not  only  to  convene, 
but  also  to  suspend  and  to  terminate  the  sessions,  and  to  dissolve, 
simultaneously  or  separately,  the  Congress  and  the  elective  portion  of 
the  Senate.  In  the  event,  however,  of  a  dissolution,  the  sovereign 
is  obliged  to  convene  the  newly  constituted  Cortes  within  the  space 

1  There  is  the  customary  regulation  that  soldiers  and  sailors  in  active  service  may 
not  vote. 

2J.  Vila  Serra,  Manual  de  elecciones  de  Diputados  a  Cortes  (Valencia,  1907); 
J.  Lon  y  Albareda,  Nueva  ley  electoral  de  8  de  Agosto  de  1907,  comentada  (Madrid, 
1907);  M.  Vivanco  y  L.  San  Martin,  La  reforma  electoral  (Madrid,  1907). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  619 

of  three  months.  Except  when  it  devolves  upon  the  Senate  to  exercise 
its  purely  judicial  functions,  neither  of  the  chambers  may  be  assembled 
without  the  other.  In  no  case  may  the  two  chambers  sit  as  a  single 
assembly,  or  deliberate  in  the  presence  of  the  sovereign.  Each  body 
is  authorized  to  judge  the  qualifications  of  its  members  and  to  frame 
and  adopt  its  own  rules  of  procedure.  The  Senate  elects  its  secretaries, 
but  its  president  and  vice-president  are  designated,  for  each  session, 
and  from  the  senators  themselves,  by  the  crown.  The  Congress,  on 
the  other  hand,  elects  from  its  membership  all  of  its  own  officials. 
Sessions  of  both  chambers  are  public,  though  "when  secrecy  is  nec- 
essary" the  doors  may  be  closed.  A  majority  of  the  members  con- 
stitutes a  quorum,  and  measures  are  passed  by  a  majority  vote.  No 
senator  or  deputy  may  be  held  to  account  by  legal  process  for  any 
opinion  uttered  or  for  any  vote  cast  within  the  chamber  to  which  he 
belongs;  and,  save  when  taken  in  the  commission  of  an  offense,  a 
member  is  entitled  to  all  of  the  safeguards  against  arrest  and  judicial 
proceedings  which  are  extended  customarily  to  members  of  legislative 
bodies  in  constitutional  states.1 

685.  Functions  and  Powers  of  the  Cortes. — The  function  of  the 
Cortes  is  primarily  legislative.  Each  chamber  shares  with  the  crown 
the  right  to  initiate  measures,  and  no  proposal  can  become  law  until 
it  has  received  the  sanction  of  the  two  houses.  Rejection  of  a  bill  by 
either  chamber,  or  by  the  crown,  precludes  the  possibility  of  a  re- 
appearance of  the  project  during  the  continuance  of  the  session.  Meas- 
ures relating  to  taxation  and  to  the  public  credit  must  be  presented, 
in  the  first  instance,  in  the  Congress  of  Deputies,  and  it  is  made  the 
specific  obligation  of  the  Government  every  year  to  lay  before  that 
body  for  examination  and  approval  a  budget  of  revenues  and  ex- 
penditures. Only  upon  authority  of  law  may  the  Government  alienate 
property  belonging  to  the  state,  or  borrow  money  on  the  public  credit. 
Under  Spanish  constitutional  theory  the  Cortes  is  the  agent  of  the 
sovereign  nation.  It  is  authorized,  therefore,  not  only  to  discharge 
the  usual  functions  of  legislation  but  also  to  do  three  other  things  of 
fundamental  importance.  In  the  first  place,  it  receives  from  the 
sovereign,  from  the  heir-apparent,  and  from  the  regent  or  regency  of 
the  kingdom,  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  constitution  and  the  laws.  In 
the  second  place,  under  provisions  contained  within  the  constitution, 

1  It  is  to  be  observed  that  these  guarantees  are  not  quite  absolute.  During  the 
crisis  of  1904  the  Maura  government  required  the  Congress  to  suspend  the  legis- 
lative immunity  of  no  fewer  than  140  members,  and  for  the  first  time  since  1834 
deputies  were  handed  over  to  the  courts  to  be  tried  for  offenses  of  a  purely  political 
character. 


620  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

it  elects  the  regent  or  regency  and  appoints  a  guardian  for  a  minor 
sovereign.  Finally,  to  maintain  the  responsibility  of  ministers  to  the 
lower  chamber,  and,  through  it,  to  the  nation,  the  Congress  is  author- 
ized to  impeach,  and  the  Senate  to  try,  at  any  time  any  member  of  the 
Government.1 

VI.  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

686.  Party  Groups  After  1869. — Since  the  dawn  of  constitutionalism 
political  life  in  Spain  has  comprised  much  of  the  time  a  sheer  game 
between  the  "ins"  and  the  "outs",  in  which  issues  have  counted  for 
little  and  the  schemings  of  the  caciques,  or  professional  wire-pullers 
and  bosses,  have  counted  for  well-nigh  everything.  For  the  exercise 
of  independent  popular  judgment  upon  fundamental  political  ques- 
tions aptitude  has  been  meager  and  opportunity  rare.  Political  par- 
ties there  have  been,  and  still  are,  and  certain  of  them  have  exhibited 
distinct  power  of  survival.  Yet  it  must  be  observed  that  even  the 
stablest  of  them  are  essentially  the  creatures  of  the  political  leaders 
and  that  at  no  time  have  they  exhibited  the  broadly  national  rootage 
of  political  parties  in  other  states  of  western  Europe. 

Party  cleavages  in  Spain  had  their  beginning  early  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  but  for  the  origins  of  the  groups  which  share  in  an  important 
manner  nowadays  in  the  politics  of  the  kingdom  it  is  not  necessary 
to  return  to  a  period  more  remote  than  that  of  the  revolution  of  1868. 
Subsequent  to  the  expulsion  of  Queen  Isabella  at  least  four  groups  were 
thrown  into  more  or  less  sharp  relief.  One  was  the  Carlists,  supporters 
of  the  claims  of  Don  Carlos  and,  in  respect  to  political  principle, 
avowed  absolutists.  A  second  comprised  the  Republicans,  led  by 
Castelar,  whose  demand  for  the  establishment  of  a  republic,  rejected 
in  1869,  carried  the  day  upon  the  breakdown  of  the  Amadeo  monarchy 
four  years  later.  Between  the  Carlists,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Republicans,  on  the  other,  stood  the  mass  of  the  political  leaders, 
and,  so  far  as  may  be  judged,  of  the  nation  also.  All  were  agreed  upon 
the  general  principle  of  constitutional  monarchy.  But  upon  the 
precise  nature  of  the  government  which  had  been  established  and  of 
the  public  policy  which  ought  to  be  pursued  there  was,  and  could  be, 
little  agreement.  The  consequence  was  a  sharp-cut  cleavage,  by  which 
there  were  set  off  in  opposition  to  each  other  two  large  parties,  the 

1  Arts.  32-47.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  207-209.  On  the  Cortes  may 
be  consulted,  in  addition  to  the  constitutional  treatises  mentioned  on  pp.  612-613, 
A.  Borrego,  Historia  de  las  Cortes  de  Espano  durante  el  siglo  XIX.  (Madrid,  1885), 
and  A.  Pons  y  Umbert,  Organizaci6n  y  funcionamento  de  las  Cortes  segun  las  con- 
stituciones  espanolas  y  reglamentacion  de  dicho  cuerpo  colegislador  (Madrid,  1906). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  621 

Conservatives  and  the  Liberals;  and,  save  for  the  brief  ascendancy  of 
the  Republicans  in  1873-1874,  it  is  these  two  parties  which  have 
shared  between  them  the  government  of  the  kingdom  from  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  limited  monarchy  in  1869  to  the  present  day.  Both 
of  these  leading  parties  have  been  pledged  continuously  to  maintain 
the  constitution  and  all  of  the  popular  privileges — freedom  of  speech, 
liberty  of  the  press,  safety  of  property,  the  right  of  establishing  asso- 
ciations, and  the  like — guaranteed  by  that  instrument.  Upon  the 
methods  by  which  these  things  shall  be  maintained  the  parties  orig- 
inally divided  and  still  are  disagreed.  Fundamentally,  the  policy  of 
the  Liberals  is  to  commit  the  guardianship  of  public  privileges  to  the 
courts  of  justice,  while  that  of  the  Conservatives  is  to  retain  it  rather 
in  the  hands  of  the  ministerial  and  administrative  authorities.  In  the 
normal  course  of  development  the  Liberal  party  has  tended  to  draw 
to  itself  those  liberal  elements  generally  which  are  satisfied  to  rely 
upon  legal  means  for  the  realization  of  their  purposes,  e.  g.,  the  free- 
traders, the  labor  forces,  and  many  of  the  socialists.  Similarly  the 
Conservative  party  has  attracted  a  considerable  proportion  of  the 
reactionaries,  especially  the  Ultramontanes,  by  whom  special  stress  is 
placed  upon  the  maintenance  of  peace  with  the  Vatican,  and  many 
representatives  of  the  old  Moderate  party  which  was  swept  out  of 
existence  by  the  overturn  of  1868. 

687.  Liberals  and  Conservatives :  Canovas  and  Sagasta. — The  first 
public  act  of  Alfonso  XII.,  following  his  proclamation  as  king,  De- 
cember 29,  1874,  was  to  call  to  his  side  in  the  capacity  of  premier 
Canovas  del  Castillo,  by  whom  was  formed  a  strong  Conservative 
ministry.  Consequent  upon  the  convocation  of  the  Cortes  of  1876 
and  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  of  that  year,  the  various 
groups  of  Liberals  were  drawn  into  a  fairly  compact  opposition  party, 
supporting  the  Alfonsist  dynasty  and  the  new  constitutional  regime, 
but  proposing  to  labor,  by  peaceful  means,  for  the  restoration  of  as 
many  as  possible  of  the  more  liberal  features  of  the  constitution  of 
1869.  It  is  of  interest  to  observe  that  the  party,  in  its  earlier  years, 
was  encouraged  by  Canovas,  on  the  theory  that  there  would  be  pro- 
vided by  it  a  natural  and  harmless  outlet  for  inevitable  ebullitions  of 
the  liberal  spirit.  Under  the  able  leadership  of  Sagasta  the  develop- 
ment of  the  party  was  rapid,  and  in  1881  Canovas  determined  to  give 
the  country  a  taste  of  Liberal  rule.  Following  a  collusive  " defeat" 
the  premier  retired,  whereupon  Sagasta  was  designated  premier  and 
a  Liberal  ministry  was  established  which  held  office  somewhat  more 
than  two  years.  By  the  Republicans  and  other  radical  forces  the 
ministry  of  Sagasta  was  harassed  unsparingly,  just  as  had  been  that 


622  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  Canovas,  and  the  actual  working  policies  of  the  two  differed  in 
scarcely  any  particular.  Within  the  Liberal  ranks,  indeed,  a  "  dynastic 
Left"  became  so  troublesome  that  Sagasta,  after  two  years,  yielded 
office  to  the  leader  of  the  disaffected  elements,  Posada  Herrera.  The 
only  effect  of  the  experiment  was  to  demonstrate  that  between  the 
Conservatives  led  by  Canovas  and  the  Liberals  led  by  Sagasta  there 
was  no  room  for  a  third  party. 

In  1885  Canovas  returned  to  power,  but  for  only  a  brief  interval, 
for  upon  the  establishment  of  the  regency  of  Queen  Christina,  follow- 
ing the  death  of  Alfonso  XII.,  November  25,  1885,  Sagasta  was  called 
upon  to  form  the  first  of  a  series  of  ministries  over  which  he  presided 
continuously  through  the  ensuing  five  years.  In  the  memorable 
Pact  of  El  Pardo  it  had  been  agreed  between  the  Liberal  and  Con- 
servative leaders  that  each  would  assist  the  other  in  the  defense  of 
the  dynasty  and  of  the  constitution,  and  although  Sagasta  had  avowed 
the  intention  of  reintroducing  certain  principles  of  the  constitution  of 
1869  he  was  pledged  to  proceed  in  a  cautious  manner  and  a  concilia- 
tory spirit.  The  elections  of  1884  yielded  a  substantial  Conservative 
majority  in  both  chambers  of  the  Cortes.  None  the  less  the  Con- 
servatives accorded  the  Liberal  government  their  support,  until  by 
the  elections  of  1886  the  Liberals  themselves  acquired  control  of  the 
two  houses.  Throughout  three  years  Castelar  and  the  more  moderate 
Republicans  co-operated  actively  with  the  Government  in  the  re- 
introduction  of  jury  trial,  the  revival  of  liberty  of  the  press,  and  a 
number  of  other  liberal  measures;  but  the  Government  was  annoyed 
continually  by  attacks  and  intrigues  participated  in  by  both  the  less 
conciliatory  Republicans  and  the  Carlists.  The  crowning  achievement 
of  the  Sagasta  ministry  was  the  carrying  through  of  the  manhood 
suffrage  act  of  June  29, 1890.  Within  a  month  after  the  promulgation 
of  the  suffrage  law  the  regent  gave  Sagasta  to  understand  that  the 
time  had  arrived  for  a  change  of  leaders.  The  Canovas  ministry 
which  was  thereupon  established  endured  two  and  a  half  years,  and 
was  given  distinction  principally  by  its  introduction,  in  1892,  of  the 
thoroughgoing  protectionist  regime  which  prevails  in  Spain  to-day. 
The  Conservatives  falling  into  discord,  Canovas  resigned,  December  8, 
1892;  and  at  the  elections  of  the  following  year  the  Conservatives 
carried  only  one  hundred  seats  in  the  Chamber.  During  the  period 
from  December,  1892,  to  March,  1895,  Sagasta  was  again  at  the 
helm. 

688.  The  American  War  and  Ministerial  Changes,  1895-1902. — 
Between  1895  and  1901  there  was  a  rapid  succession  of  ministries, 
virtually  all  of  which  were  both  made  and  unmade  by  situations  aris- 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  623 

ing  from  the  war  in  Cuba  and  the  subsequent  contest  with  the  United 
States.  In  the  hope  of  averting  American  intervention  a  new  Canovas 
government,  established  in  1895,  brought  forward  a  measure  for  the 
introduction  of  home  rule  in  Cuba,  but  while  the  bill  was  pending, 
Canovas  was  assassinated,  August  9,  1897,  and  the  proposition  failed. 
The  new  Conservative  cabinet  of  General  Azcarraga  soon  retired,  and 
although  the  Sagasta  government  which  succeeded  recalled  General 
Weyler  from  Cuba  and  inaugurated  a  policy  of  conciliation,  the  situa- 
tion had  got  beyond  control  and  war  with  the  United  States  ensued. 
By  the  succession  of  Spanish  defeats  the  popularity  of  the  Liberal 
regime  was  strained  to  the  breaking  point,  and  at  the  close  of  the  war 
Sagasta's  ministry  gave  place  to  a  ministry  formed  by  the  new  Con- 
servative leader  Silvela.  The  elections  of  April  16,  1899,  yielded  the 
Silvelists  a  majority  and  the  ministry,  reconstituted  September  28  of 
the  same  year,  retained  power  until  March  6,  1901.  At  that  date  the 
Liberals  gained  the  upper  hand  once  more;  and,  with  two  brief  in- 
tervals, Sagasta  remained  in  office  until  December  3,  1902.  Within 
scarcely  more  than  a  month  after  his  final  retirement,  the  great 
Liberal  leader  passed  away. 

689.  Parties  Since  the  Death  of  Sagasta. — A  second  Silvela  minis- 
try, established  December  6,  1902,  brought  the  Conservatives  again 
into  power.  This  ministry,  which  lasted  but  a  few  months,  was  fol- 
lowed successively  by  four  other  Conservative  governments,  as  follows: 
that  of  Villa  verde,  May,  1903,  to  December,  1903;  that  of  Antonio 
Maura  y  Montanes,  December,  1903,  to  December,  1904;  the  sec- 
ond of  General  Azcarraga,  December,  1904,  to  January,  1905;  and 
the  second  of  Villa  verde,  from  January,  1905,  to  June,  1905.  Of 
these  the  most  virile  was  that  of  Maura,  a  former  Liberal,  whose 
spirit  of  conciliation  and  progressiveness  entitled  him  to  be  considered 
one  of  the  few  real  statesmen  of  Spain  in  the  present  generation. 

Following  the  death  of  Sagasta  the  Liberals  passed  through  a  period 
of  demoralization,  but  under  the  leadership  of  Montero  Rios  they 
gradually  recovered,  and  in  June,  1905,  the  government  of  Villaverde 
was  succeeded  by  one  presided  over  by  Rios.  At  the  elections  of 
September  10,  1905,  the  Ministerialists  secured  227  seats  and  the 
Conservatives  of  all  groups  but  126  (the  remainder  being  scattered); 
but  discord  arose  and,  November  29  following,  the  cabinet  of  Rios 
resigned.  Upon  the  great  ecclesiastical  questions  of  the  day — civil 
marriage,  the  law  of  associations,  and  the  secularization  of  education — 
both  parties,  but  especially  the  Liberals,  were  disrupted  completely, 
and  during  the  period  of  but  little  more  than  a  year  between  the  re- 
tirement of  Rios  and  the  return  to  power  of  Maura,  January  24, 1907, 


624  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

no  fewer  than  five  ministries  sought  successively  to  grapple  with  the 
situation.  Under  Maura  a  measure  of  stability  was  restored.  The 
premier,  although  a  Catholic,  was  moderately  anti-clerical.  His 
principal  purpose  was  to  maintain  order  and  to  elevate  the  plane  of 
politics  by  a  reform  of  the  local  government.  At  the  elections  of 
April  21,  1907,  the  Conservatives  won  a  victory  so  decisive  that  in  the 
Congress  they  secured  a  majority  of  88  seats  over  all  other  groups 
combined.1  The  fall  of  the  Maura  ministry,  October  21,  1909,  came 
in  consequence  largely  of  the  Moroccan  crisis,  but  more  immediately 
by  reason  of  embarrassment  incident  to  the  execution  of  the  anarchist- 
philosopher  Sehor  Ferrer.  The  Liberal  ministry  of  Moret,  constituted 
October  22,  1909,  lacked  substantial  parliamentary  support  and  was 
short-lived.  February  9, 1910,  there  was  established  under  Canalejas, 
leader  of  the  democratic  group,  a  cabinet  representative  of  various 
Liberal  and  Radical  elements  and  made  up  almost  wholly  of  men  new 
to  ministerial  office.2 

690.  The  Elections  of  1910. — The  first  important  act  of  Canalejas 
was  to  persuade  the  sovereign,  as  Moret  had  vainly  sought  to  do,  to 
dissolve  the  Cortes,  to  the  end  that  the  Liberal  ministry  might  appeal 
to  the  country.  The  elections  were  held  May  10.  They  were  of 
peculiar  interest  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  now  for  the  first  time  there 
was  put  into  operation  an  electoral  measure  of  the  recent  Maura  gov- 
ernment whereby  it  is  required  that  every  candidate  for  a  seat  in  the 
lower  chamber  shall  be  placed  in  nomination  by  two  ex-senators,  two 
ex-deputies,  or  three  members  of  the  general  council  of  the  province. 
This  regulation  had  been  opposed  by  the  Republicans  and  by  the 
radical  elements  generally  on  the  ground  that  it  put  in  the  hands  of 
the  Government  power  virtually  to  dictate  candidacies  in  many 
electoral  districts,  and  the  results  seemed  fairly  to  sustain  the  charge. 
May  i,  in  accordance  with  a  provision  of  the  law,  120  deputies — 
upwards  of  one-third  of  the  total  number  to  be  chosen — were  declared 
elected,  by  reason  of  having  no  competitors.  Of  these  70  were  Liberals, 
39  were  Conservatives,  and  the  remainder  belonged  to  minor  groups. 
In  the  districts  in  which  there  were  contests  the  Government  also  won 
decisively  a  few  days  later,  as  it  did  likewise  in  the  senatorial  elections 
of  May  15.  The  results  of  the  elections,  as  officially  reported,  may  be 
tabulated  as  follows: 

1  The  exact  distribution  of  seats  was  as  follows:  Conservatives,  256;  Liberals,  66; 
Solidarists,  53;  Republicans,  32;  Democrats,  9;  Independents,  8. 

2November  12,  1912,  Premier  Canalejas  was  assassinated.  He  was  succeeded  by 
the  president  of  the  Congress  of  Deputies,  Alvaro  de  Romanones,  under  whom  the 
Liberal  ministry  was  continued  in  office. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN 


625 


SENATE 


c< 

DJ 

Liberals  

)NGRESS   i 
OF 
EPUTIES 

2  2O 

Elected 
'ndirectly 
by  the 
people,    i 
May  15 
92 

Elected 
by  the 
corpora- 
ions,  etc., 
May  15 
ii 

Total 
elected 

Dissenting  Liberals. 
Conservatives 

0 
IO7 

3 

0 

7 

3 
42 

Republicans 

4.O 

2 

i 

4~ 

Carlists  

4 

o 

4 

Regionalists 

8 

A 

i 

<r 

Integrists  .  .  . 

7 

o 

o 

o 

Independents 

r 

I 

I 

2 

Socialists  . 

I 

o 

o 

o 

Catholics.  . 

O 

S 

0 

S 

Immov- 

able 

Grand 

portion 

Total 

of 

Senate 

70 

173 

0 

3 

77 

119 

0 

4 

2 

6 

0 

5 

0 

0 

16 

18 

0 

0 

8 

13 

406 


147 


21 


168 


173  * 


34i 


691.  Republicanism  and  Socialism. — Among  other  accounts,  the 
elections  of  1910  were  notable  by  reason  of  the  return  to  the  Congress 
for  the  first  time  of  a  socialist  member.  In  Madrid,  as  in  other  centers 
of  population,  the  Government  concluded  with  the  Conservatives  an 
entente  calculated  to  hold  in  check  the  rising  tide  of  socialism  and 
republicanism.  Under  the  stimulus  thus  afforded  the  Socialists  at  last 
responded  to  the  overtures  which  the  Republicans  had  long  been  mak- 
ing, and  the  coalition  which  resulted  was  successful  in  returning  to 
Parliament  the  Socialist  leader  Iglesias,  together  with  an  otherwise  all 
but  unbroken  contingent  of  Republicans.  In  Barcelona  and  elsewhere 
Republican  gains  were  decisive.  None  the  less  the  Republican  forces 
continue  to  be  so  embarrassed  by  factional  strife  as  to  be  not  really 
formidable.  The  Socialists,  however,  exhibit  a  larger  degree  of  unity. 
As  in  Italy,  France,  and  most  European  countries,  they  are  growing 
both  in  numbers  and  in  effectiveness  of  organization.  In  Spain,  as  in 
Italy,  the  historic  parties  which  have  been  accustomed  to  share  be- 
tween them  the  control  of  the  state  have,  hi  reality,  long  since  lost 
much  of  the  vitality  which  they  once  possessed.  The  terms ' '  Liberal' ' 
and  "Conservative"  denote  even  less  than  once  they  did  bodies  of 
men  standing  for  recognized  political  principles,  or  even  for  recog- 
nized political  policies.  The  field  for  the  development  of  parties  which 
shall  take  more  cognizance  of  the  nation's  actual  conditions  and  be 
more  responsive  to  its  demands  seems  wide  and,  on  the  whole,  not 
unpromising.2 

1  Some  seats  vacant. 

1  On  political  parties  in  Spain  two  older  works  are  A.  Borrego,  Organizaci6n  de 
los  Partidos  (Madrid,  1855)  and  El  Partido  Conservador  (Madrid,  1857).   Two  val- 


626  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

VII.  THE  JUDICIARY  AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENT 

692.  Law  and  Justice. — The  law  of  Spain  is  founded  upon  the 
Roman  law,  the  Gothic  common  law,  and,  more  immediately,  the 
Leyes  de  Toro,  a  national  code  promulgated  by  the  Cortes  of  Toro  in 
1501.  By  the  constitution  it  is  stipulated  that  the  same  codes  shall  be 
in  operation  throughout  all  portions  of  the  realm  and  that  in  these 
codes  shall  be  maintained  but  one  system  of  law,  to  be  applied  in  all 
ordinary  civil  and  criminal  cases  in  which  Spanish  subjects  shall  be 
involved.  The  civil  code  which  is  at  present  in  operation  was  put  in  ef- 
fect throughout  the  entire  kingdom  May  i,  1889.  The  penal  code  dates 
from  1870,  but  was  amended  in  1877.  The  code  of  civil  procedure 
was  put  in  operation  April  i,  1881,  and  that  of  criminal  procedure, 
June  22,  1882.  A  new  commercial  code  took  effect  August  22,  1885. 

"The  power  of  applying  the  laws  in  civil  and  criminal  cases,"  says 
the  constitution,  "  shall  belong  exclusively  to  the  courts,  which  shall 
exercise  no  other  functions  than  those  of  judging  and  of  enforcing  their 
judgments."  1  What  courts  shall  be  established,  the  organization  of 
each,  its  powers,  the  manner  of  exercising  them,  and  the  qualifications 
which  its  members  must  possess,  are  left  to  be  determined  by  law. 
The  civil  hierarchy  to-day  comprises  tribunals  of  four  grades:  the 
municipal  courts,  the  courts  of  first  instance,  the  courts  of  appeal,  and 
the  Supreme  Court  at  Madrid.  The  justices  of  the  peace  of  the 
municipal  courts  are  charged  with  the  registration  of  births  and  deaths, 
the  preparation  of  voting  lists,  the  performance  of  civil  marriage,  and 
the  hearing  of  petty  cases  to  the  end  that  conciliation,  if  possible, 
may  be  effected  between  the  litigants.  No  civil  case  may  be  brought 
in  any  higher  court  until  effort  shall  have  been  made  to  adjust  it  in  a 
justice's  tribunal.  In  each  of  the  495  partidos  judiciales,  or  judicial 
districts,  of  the  kingdom  is  a  court  of  first  instance,  empowered  to 
take  cognizance  of  all  causes,  both  civil  and  criminal.  From  these 
tribunals  lies  appeal  in  civil  cases  to  fifteen  audiencias  territoriales. 
By  a  law  of  April  20,  1888 — the  measure  by  which  was  introduced  the 

uable  books  are  E.  Rodriguez  Solis,  Historia  del  partido  republican©  espanol  (Mad- 
rid, 1893)  and  B.  M.  Andrade  y  Uribe,  Maura  und  di  Konservativen  Partei  in  Span- 
ien  (Karlsruhe,  1912).  The  subject  is  sketched  excellently  to  1898  in  Clarke,  Modern 
Spain,  Chaps.  14-16.  In  the  domain  of  periodical  literature  may  be  mentioned  A. 
Marvaud,  Les  61ections  espagnoles  de  mai  1907,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
July,  1907;  C.  David,  Les  61ections  espagnoles,  in  Questions  Diplomatique*  et  Coloni- 
ales,  May  16, 1907;  A.  Marvaud,  Un  aspect  nouveau  du  Catalanisme,  ibid.,  June  16, 
1907;  La  situation  politique  et  financidre  de  PEspagne,  ibid.,  Dec.  16,  1908;  La 
rentree  des  Cortes  et  la  situation  en  Espagne,  ibid.,  June  16, 1910.  A  well-informed 
sketch  is  L.  G.  Guijarro,  Spain  since  1898,  in  Yale  Review,  May,  1909. 
1  Art.  76.  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  213. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  SPAIN  627 

use  of  the  jury  in  the  majority  of  criminal  causes — there  were  estab- 
lished forty-seven  audiencias  criminates,  one  in  each  province  of  the 
kingdom,  and  these  have  become  virtually  courts  of  assize,  their 
sessions  being  held  four  times  a  year.  Finally,  at  Madrid  is  established 
a  Supreme  Court,  modelled  on  the  French  Court  of  Cassation,  whose 
function  it  is  to  decide  questions  relating  to  the  competence  of  the 
inferior  tribunals  and  to  rule  on  points  of  law  when  appeals  are  carried 
from  these  tribunals.  Cases  involving  matters  of  administrative 
law,  decided  formerly  by  the  provincial  councils  and  the  Council  of 
State,  are  disposed  of  now  in  the  audiencias  and  in  the  fourth  chamber 
of  the  Supreme  Court.1 

Justice  is  administered  in  the  name  of  the  king.  All  judgments 
must  be  pronounced  in  open  court,  and  by  the  constitution  it  is  guar- 
anteed specifically  that  proceedings  in  criminal  matters  shall  be 
public.  In  every  tribunal  the  state  is  represented  by  abogados  fiscales 
(public  prosecutors)  and  counsel  nominated  by  the  crown.  Magis- 
trates and  judges,  appointed  by  the  crown,  may  not  be  removed, 
suspended,  or  transferred,  save  under  circumstances  minutely  stip- 
ulated in  the  organic  judicial  laws.  But  judges  are  responsible  per- 
sonally for  any  violation  of  law  of  which  they  may  be  guilty. 

693.  Local  Government:  the  Province  and  the  Commune. — Prior 
to  1833  the  Spanish  mainland  comprised  thirteen  provinces,  by  which 
were  preserved  in  a  large  measure  both  the  nomenclature  and  the 
geographical  identity  of  the  ancient  kingdoms  and  principalities  from 
which  the  nation  was  constructed.  In  the  year  mentioned  the  number 
of  provinces  was  increased  to  forty-seven,  at  which  figure  it  remains 
at  the  present  day.  The  essential  agencies  of  government  in  the 
province  are  two — the  governor  and  the  diputacion  provincial,  or  pro- 
vincial council.  The  governor  is  appointed  by  the  crown  and  it  is  his 
function,  under  the  direction  of  the  Minister  of  the  Interior,  to  repre- 
sent the  central  government  in  the  provincial  council  and  in  the  general 
administrative  business  of  the  province.  The  provincial  council  is 
composed  of  members  chosen  by  the  voters  of  the  province,  which 
means,  under  the  law  of  June  28, 1890,  all  male  Spaniards  of  the  age  of 
twenty-five.  Under  the  presidency  of  the  governor  the  body  meets 
yearly,  and  in  the  intervals  between  sessions  it  is  represented  by  a 
commission  provinciate,  or  provincial  committee,  elected  annually. 
The  size  of  the  council  varies  roughly  according  to  the  population  of 
the  province. 

The  smallest  governmental  unit  is  the  commune,  and  the  number 

1  G.  Marin,  La  jurisdiction  contentieuse  administrative  en  Espagne,  in  Revue  du 
Drrit  Public,  Oct.-Dec.,  1906. 


628  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  communes  in  the  kingdom  is  approximately  8,000.  In  each  is  an 
ayuntamiento,  or  council,  the  members  of  which,  varying  in  number 
from  five  to  thirty-nine,  are  elected  for  four  years  (one-half  retiring 
biennially)  by  those  residents  of  the  commune  who  are  qualified  to 
vote  for  members  of  the  provincial  councils.  To  serve  as  the  chief 
executive  officer  of  the  municipality  the  ayuntamiento  regularly  elects 
from  its  own  number  an  alcalde,  or  mayor,  although  in  the  larger  towns 
appointment  of  the  mayor  is  reserved  to  the  crown. 

694.  Principles  of  Local  Control. — After  stipulating  that  the  or- 
ganization and  powers  of  the  provincial  and  municipal  councils  shall 
be  regulated  by  law,  the  constitution  lays  down  certain  fundamental 
principles  to  be  observed  in  the  enactment  of  such  legislation.  These 
are  (i)  the  management  of  the  local  interests  of  the  province  and  the 
commune  shall  be  left  entirely  to  the  respective  councils;  (2)  the 
estimates,  accounts,  and  official  acts  of  these  bodies  shall  invariably 
be  made  public;  (3)  the  fiscal  powers  of  the  councils  shall  be  so  deter- 
mined that  the  financial  system  of  the  nation  may  never  be  brought 
in  jeopardy;  and  (4)  in  order  to  prevent  the  councils  from  exceeding 
their  prerogatives  to  the  prejudice  of  general  and  established  interests 
the  power  of  intervention  shall  be  reserved  to  the  sovereign  and,  under 
certain  circumstances,  to  the  Cortes.1  The  theory,  carried  over  from 
the  liberal  constitution  of  1869,  is  that  within  the  spheres  marked  out 
for  them  by  law  the  provinces  and  the  municipalities  are  autonomous. 
And  it  undoubtedly  is  true  that,  compared  with  the  system  in  opera- 
tion prior  to  1868,  the  present  regime  represents  distinct  decentraliza- 
tion. None  the  less  it  must  be  said  that  in  practice  there  is  ever  a 
tendency  on  the  part  of  the  central  authorities  to  encroach  upon  the 
privileges  of  the  local  governing  agencies,  and  through  several  years 
there  has  been  under  consideration  a  reorganization  of  the  entire  ad- 
ministrative system  in  the  direction  of  less  rather  than  more  liberalism. 
In  1909  a  Local  Administration  bill  devised  by  the  recent  Maura 
ministry  was  adopted  by  the  lower  chamber  of  the  Cortes.  This 
measure,  which  was  combatted  with  vigor  by  the  Liberal  party, 
proposed  to  enlarge  the  fiscal  autonomy  of  the  communes,  but  at  the 
same  time  to  modify  the  provincial  and  municipal  electoral  system  by 
the  establishment  of  an  educational  qualification,  by  the  admission  of 
corporations  to  electoral  privileges,  and  by  otherwise  lessening  the 
weight  of  the  vote  of  the  individual  citizen.  In  the  Senate  the  measure 
met  determined  opposition,  and  as  yet  its  fate  is  uncertain.  2 

1  Art.  84.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  215. 

2  J.  Gascon  y  Marin,  La  rSforme  du  r6gime  local  en  Espagne,  in  Revue  du  Droit 
Public,  April- June,  1909. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV 
THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL 

I.  A  CENTURY  OF  POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT 

695.  The  Napoleonic  Subjugation  and  the  Constitution  of  1820.— The 

government  of  Portugal  at  the  opening  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  no 
less  absolute  than  was  that  of  Spain.  The  Cortes  was  extinct,  and  al- 
though Pombal,  chief  minister  during  the  period  1750-1777,  had  caused 
all  Portuguese  subjects  to  be  made  eligible  to  public  office  and  had  intro- 
duced numerous  economic  and  administrative  reforms,  nothing  had  been 
permitted  to  be  done  by  which  the  unrestricted  authority  of  the  crown 
might  be  impaired.  The  country  was  affected  but  slightly  by  the  Rev- 
olution in  France.  In  1807,  however,  it  fell  prey  to  Napoleon  and  the 
royal  family  was  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  the  dependency  of  Brazil. 
With  the  aid  of  the  English  the  power  of  the  conqueror  was  broken  in 
1808,  and  through  a  number  of  years  the  government  was  administered 
nominally  by  a  commission  designated  by  the  absentee  regent,  Dom  John, 
though  actually  by  a  British  dictatorship.  In  1815  Brazil  was  raised 
to  the  rank  of  a  co-ordinate  kingdom,  and  from  that  year  until  1822  the 
official  designation  of  the  state  was  "  the  United  Kingdom  of  Portugal, 
Brazil,  and  the  Algarves."  In  1816  the  mad  queen  Maria  I.  died  and  the 
regent  succeeded  to  the  affiliated  thrones  as  John  VI.  His  original 
intention  was  to  remain  in  America,  but  in  1820  a  general  revolt  in 
Portugal  culminated  in  the  calling  of  a  national  assembly  by  which 
there  was  framed  a  constitution  reproducing  the  essentials  of  the  Spanish 
instrument  of  1812,  and  by  this  turn  of  events  the  sovereign  was  im- 
pelled, in  1821,  to  set  sail  for  the  mother  country,  leaving  as  regent  in 
Brazil  his  son  Dom  Pedro.  Fidelity  to  the  new  constitution  was  pledged 
perforce,  but  the  elements  of  reaction  gathered  strength  swiftly,  and 
before  the  close  of  1823  the  instrument  was  abrogated.  The  only  tan- 
gible result  of  the  episode  was  the  creation  of  a  constitutional  party 
which  thereafter  was  able  much  of  the  time  to  keep  absolutism  upon 
the  defensive.1 

1  In  the  meantime  a  revolt  which  was  impending  in  Brazil  at  the  time  of  King 
John's  withdrawal  had  run  its  course.    September  7,  1822,  the  regent  Dom  Pedro, 

629 


630  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

696.  The  Constitutional  Charter  of  1826:  Miguelist  Wars.— The 
death  of  John  VI.,  March  10,  1826,  precipitated  a  conflict  of  large  im- 
portance in  the  history  of  Portuguese  constitutionalism.   The  heir  to  the 
throne  was  Dom  Pedro,  Emperor  of  Brazil,  who  as  sovereign  of  Portugal, 
assumed  the  title  Pedro  IV.   Having  inaugurated  his  reign  by  the  grant 
of  a  constitutional  charter  whereby  there  was  introduced  a  parliamentary 
system  of  government  on  the  pattern  of  that  in  operation  in  Great 
Britain,  the  new  king,  being  iinwilling  to  withdraw  from  America,  made 
over  the  Portuguese  throne  to  his  seven-year-old  daughter,  Dona  Maria 
da  Gloria,  with  the  stipulation  that  when  she  should  come  of  age  she 
should  be  married  to  her  uncle,  Dom  Miguel,  in  whom  meanwhile  the 
regency  was  to  be  vested.    Amid  enthusiasm  the  Carta  Constitutional 
was  proclaimed  at  Lisbon,  July  31, 1826,  and  in  August  there  was  estab- 
lished a  responsible  Liberal  ministry  under  Saldanha.    When,  however, 
in  1828,  the  regent  at  length  arrived  in  Portugal,  a  clerical  and  absolutist 
counter-revolution  was  found  to  be  under  way,  and  by  the  reactionary 
elements  he  was  received,  not  as  regent,  but  as  king.    By  a  Cortes  of 
the  ancient  type,  summoned  in  the  stead  of  the  parliament  provided  for 
in  the  Charter,  Dom  Miguel  was  tendered  the  crown,  which,  in  violation 
of  all  the  pledges  he  had  given,  he  made  haste  to  accept.   That  he  might 
vindicate  the  claims  of  his  daughter,  the  Emperor  Pedro,  in  April,  1831, 
abdicated  his  Brazilian  throne  and,  repairing  to  Portugal,  devoted  him- 
self unsparingly  to  the  task  of  deposing  the  usurper.   The  outcome  of  the 
wars  which  ensued  was  that  in  1834  Dom  Miguel  was  overthrown  and 
banished  perpetually  from  the  kingdom.    Until  his  death,  in  September 
of  the  same  year,  Pedro  acted  as  regent  for  his  daughter,  and  under  his 
comparatively  enlightened  rule  the  Charter  of  1826  was  restored  and  the 
state  was  set  once  more  upon  the  path  of  reform.    Upon  his  death  the 
Princess  Maria  assumed  the  throne  as  Maria  II.1 

697.  Nominal  Constitutionalism,  1834-1863. — The  reign  of  Queen 
Maria  (1834-1853)  was  a  period  of  factional  turbulence.   There  were  now 
three  political  groups  of  principal  importance:  the  Miguelists,  represent- 
ing the  interests  of  the  repudiated  absolutist  regime;  the  Chartists,  who 
advocated  the  principles  of  the  moderate  constitution  (that  of  1826) 

who  freely  cast  in  his  lot  with  the  revolutionists,  proclaimed  the  country's  inde- 
pendence, and  some  weeks  later  he  was  declared  constitutional  emperor.  Protest 
from  Lisbon  was  emphatic,  but  means  of  coercing  the  rebellious  colony  were  not  at 
hand,  and,  in  1825,  under  constraint  of  the  powers,  King  John  was  compelled  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  his  transoceanic  dominion. 

1  Cambridge  Modern  History,  X.,  Chap.  10;  Lavisse  et  Rambaud,  Histoire 
G6nerale,  X.,  Chap.  6;  H.  M.  Stephens,  Portugal  (New  York,  1903),  Chap.  18.  A 
general  treatise  covering  the  period  is  W.  Bollaert,  The  Wars  of  Succession  of 
Portugal  and  Spain  from  1821  to  1840  (London,  1870). 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  631 

at  the  time  in  operation;  and  the  Septembrists,1  who  were  attached 
rather  to  the  principles  of  the  radical  instrument  of  1821-1822.  By  all, 
save  perhaps  the  Miguelists,  the  maintenance  of  a  constitution  of  some 
type  was  regarded  as  no  longer  an  open  question.  In  1836  the  Septem- 
brists stimulated  a  popular  rising  in  consequence  of  which  the  consti- 
tution of  1822  was  declared  again  in  effect  until  a  new  one  should  have 
been  devised,  and,  April  4,  1838,  there  was  brought  forward  under 
Septembrist  auspices  an  instrument  in  which  it  was  provided  that  an 
elected  senate  should  take  the  place  of  the  aristocratic  House  of  Peers 
for  which  the  Charter  provided,  and  that  elections  to  the  House  of  Dep- 
uties should  thenceforth  be  direct.  In  1839,  however,  a  moderate  min- 
istry was  constituted  with  Antonio  Bermudo  da  Costa  Cabral  as  its 
real,  though  not  its  nominal,  head,  and  by  a  pronunciamento  of  Feb- 
ruary 10,  1842,  the  Charter  was  restored  to  operation.  Costa  Cabral 
(Count  of  Thomar  after  1845)  ruled  despotically  until  May,  1846,  when 
by  a  combination  of  Miguelists,  Septembrists,  and  Chartists  he  was 
driven  into  exile.2  The  Chartist  ministry  of  Saldanha  succeeded.  In 
1849  it  was  replaced  by  a  ministry  under  the  returned  Thomar,  but  by  a 
rising  of  April  7, 1851,  Thomar  was  again  exiled.  At  the  head  of  a  mod- 
erate coalition  Saldanha  governed  peacefully  through  the  next  five  years 
(1851-1856).  The  period  was  marked  by  two  important  developments. 
July  5,  1852,  a  so-called  "Additional  Act"  revised  the  Charter  by  pro- 
viding for  the  direct  election  of  deputies,  the  decentralization  of  the 
executive,  the  creation  of  representative  municipal  councils,  and  the 
abolition  of  capital  punishment  for  political  offenses.  A  second  fact  of 
importance  was  the  amalgamation,  in  1852,  of  the  Septembrists  and  the 
Chartists  to  form  the  party  of  Regeneradores,  or  Regenerators,  in  sur> 
port  of  the  Charter  in  its  new  and  liberalized  form. 

698.  Party  Rivalries:  the  Rotativos. — In  the  constitutional  history 
of  the  kingdom  the  reign  of  Pedro  V.  (1853-1861)  possesses  slight 
importance.  There  was  less  civil  strife  than  during  the  preceding 
generation,  but  ministries  took  office  in  rapid  succession  and  little 
improvement  was  realized  in  practical  political  conditions.  The 
period  covered  by  the  more  extended  reign  of  Luiz  I.  (1861-1889)  was 
of  the  same  character,  save  that  its  later  years  were  given  some  dis- 
tinction by  certain  developments  in  the  party  situation.  The  death 
of  the  old  Chartist  leader  Saldanha  in  1876  was  followed,  indeed,  by 
the  appearance  of  a  political  alignment  that  was  essentially  new. 
Already  the  Regeneradores,  representing  the  Chartist-Septembrist 

1  So  called  from  the  coup  tftlat  of  September,  1836,  mentioned  shortly. 
2E.  Bavoux,  Costa  Cabral;  notes  historiques  sur  sa  carrieTe  et  son  ministfre 
(Paris,  1846). 


632  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

coalition  of  1852,  had  disintegrated,  and  in  1877  the  more  radical 
elements  of  the  defunct  party,  known  at  first  as  the  Historic  Left, 
were  reorganized  under  the  name  of  the  Progressistas,  or  Progressives. 
The  new  conservative  elements,  on  the  other  hand,  carried  on  the 
traditions  and  preserved  the  name  of  the  original  Regeneradores.  In 
the  Cortes  the  Progressistas  assumed  the  position  of  a  Constitutional 
Left  and  the  surviving  Regeneradores  that  of  a  Conservative  Right. 
Both  were  monarchical  and  both  were  attached  to  the  existing  consti- 
tution, differing  only  in  respect  to  the  amendments  which  they  would 
have  preferred  to  introduce  in  that  instrument.  Of  remaining  parties 
two  were  of  importance,  i.  e.,  the  Miguelists,  representing  still  the 
interests  of  absolutism,  and  the  Republicans,  who  first  acquired 
definite  party  organization  in  1881. 

Between  1877  and  1910  the  Regeneradores  and  the  Progressistas 
shared  in  rotation  the  spoils  of  office  with  such  regularity  that  the  two 
acquired  popularly  the  nickname  of  the  rotatiws.  Both  were  domi- 
nated by  professional  politicians  whose  skill  in  manipulating  popular 
elections  was  equalled  only  by  then"  greed  for  the  spoils  of  victory. 
Successful  operation  of  a  parliamentary  system  presupposes  at  least  a 
fairly  healthy  public  opinion.  But  in  Portugal,  upwards  of  four-fifths 
of  whose  inhabitants  are  illiterate,1  there  has  been  no  such  favoring 
condition,  and  the  opportunity  for  the  demagogue  and  the  cacique  has 
been  correspondingly  tempting.  Parties  have  been  regularly  mere 
cliques  and  party  politics  only  factional  strife.  Throughout  the 
period  corruption  was  abundant  and  such  public  feeling  as  existed 
was  stifled  systematically.  Elections  were  supervised  in  every  detail 
by  the  provincial  governors;  agents  of  the  Government  were  em- 
ployed to  instruct  the  people  in  their  choice  of  representatives;  and 
the  voters  did  habitually  precisely  what  they  were  told  to  do.  No  one 
ever  expected  an  election  to  show  results  adverse  to  the  Government. 
Especially  unscrupulous  was  the  manner  in  which  the  preponderating 
parties  obstructed  systematically  the  election  of  Republican  and 
Independent  deputies.  As  late  as  1906  but  one  Republican  was  re- 
turned to  the  Cortes,  although  it  was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  in  many  constituencies  the  party  commanded  a  clear  majority. 

699.  The  Dictatorship  of  Franco,  1906-1908. — From  June,  1900, 
to  October,  1904,  the  Regeneradores  were  in  power,  with  Ribeiro  as 
premier.  During  this  period  two  national  elections,  in  1900  and  in 
1904,  yielded  the  controlling  party  substantial  majorities.  From 
October,  1904,  the  Progressive  ministry  of  Luciano  de  Castro  occupied 
the  field,  but  in  the  spring  of  1906  there  took  place  a  series  of  minis- 
1  By  official  calculation,  78.6  per  cent  in  1900. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  633 

terial  crises  in  the  course  of  which  Robeiro  returned  for  a  brief  interval 
to  power.  The  election  of  April  26,  1906,  gave  the  Regeneradores  113 
seats,  the  Progressistas  30,  and  the  Republicans  i.  The  ministerial 
changes  by  which  this  election  was  accompanied  prepared  the  way  for 
the  establishment  of  the  regime  known  in  recent  Portuguese  history 
as  the  dictadura,  or  dictatorship.  The  new  premier,  Joao  Franco,  was 
one  of  the  abler  and  more  conscientious  men  in  public  life.  Originally 
a  Regenerator,  as  early  as  1901  he  had  led  a  secession  from  the  party, 
and  in  1903  he  had  organized  definitely  a  third  party,  the  Liberal 
Regenerators,  whose  avowed  end  was  the  establishment  in  Portugal 
of  true  parliamentarism.  In  1906  a  " Liberal  Concentration'*  was 
effected  between  Franco's  followers  and  the  Progressistas,  led  by 
Castro,  and  the  outcome  was  the  calling,  May  19,  1906,  of  Franco  to 
the  premiership.  That  office  he  assumed  with  the  determination  to 
introduce  and  to  carry  through  an  elaborate  programme  of  sorely 
needed  fiscal  and  administrative  reforms.  If  possible,  his  methods 
were  to  be  entirely  constitutional;  if  not,  as  nearly  so  as  might  prove 
practicable.  The  Cortes  elected  April  26  met  June  6  and,  being  found 
unpromising,  was  dissolved.  During  the  campaign  which  followed 
the  Regenerador  party,  to  which  Franco  nominally  belonged,  split,  the 
Franquistas,  or  supporters  of  the  premier,  taking  the  name  of  New 
Regenerators.  The  returns  yielded  by  the  election  of  August  12  were: 
New  Regenerators,  73  seats;  Progressives,  43;  Old  Regenerators,  23; 
Republicans,  4;  with  scattering  seats  distributed  among  other  groups. 
The  sitting  of  the  Cortes  which  began  September  29,  1906,  was  one 
of  the  stormiest  on  record.  In  May,  1907,  when  the  Government 
seemed  on  the  point  of  collapse  and  it  was  supposed  that  Franco  would 
resign,  the  indomitable  premier  effected  a  coup  d'ttat  whereby  the 
ministry  was  reconstituted,  the  Cortes  was  dissolved,  and  several 
important  bills  which  were  pending  were  proclaimed  to  have  acquired 
the  force  of  law.  During  the  ensuing  twelvemonth  the  government 
was  that  of  a  benevolent  but  uncompromising  dictatorship.  Sup- 
ported by  the  king,  the  army,  and  a  considerable  body  of  partisans, 
Franco  succeeded  in  carrying  through  the  major  portion  of  his  reform 
programme.  But  he  was  opposed  by  the  Republicans,  by  the  pro- 
fessional politicians  of  the  older  parties,  and  by  the  entire  hierarchy 
of  administrative  and  judicial  officials  who  shrank  from  impending 
investigation.  His  task  was  enhanced  tremendously  by  the  growing 
unpopularity  of  King  Carlos,  and  in  defense  of  the  sovereign  it  was 
found  necessary  to  deprive  the  House  of  Peers  of  its  judicial  functions, 
to  replace  the  district  and  municipal  councils  by  commissions  named 
by  the  crown,  and,  in  short,  to  suspend  virtually  all  remaining  vestiges 


634  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  popular  government,  as  well  as  the  various  guarantees  of  individual 
liberty. 

700.  Restoration  of  Normal  Conditions. — February  i,  1908,  when 
the  situation  bordered  on  revolution,  King  Carlos  and  the  crown 
prince  Louis  Philippe  were  assassinated  and  the  dictatorship  of  Franco 
was  brought  abruptly  to  an  end.    The  king's  second  son,  who  suc- 
ceeded under  the  title  of  Manoel  II.,  called  together  an  extraordinary 
junta  of  ministers  and  party  leaders,  at  whose  instigation  the  im- 
perious premier  resigned  and  withdrew  from  the  country;  whereupon, 
under  the  premiership  of  Admiral  Ferreira  do  Amaral,  there  was 
formed  a  coalition  ministry,  representative  of  all  of  the  monarchist 
parties.     The  administrative  commissions  created  by  Franco  were 
dissolved;  the  civil  list,  concerning  which  there  had  been  grave  con- 
troversy, was  reduced;  the  House  of  Peers  was  reconstituted;  the  elec- 
tion of  a  new  Cortes  was  ordered;  and  parliamentary  institutions, 
suspended  for  a  year,  were  revived.    The  various  reforms,  on  the 
other  hand,  for  which  the  dictator  had  been  responsible  were  brought 
likewise  to  an  end.    The  election  of  April  5,  attended  by  grave  dis- 
orders, yielded  the  Government  a  decisive  majority  and,  April  29,  the 
new  sovereign  formally  opened  the  first  Cortes  of  his  reign  and  took 
oath  to  support  the  constitution.    In  the  Chamber  the  old  balance 
between  the  Regeneradores  and  the  Progressistas  reappeared.    Of  the 
former  there  were  61;  of  the  latter,  59.    The  Republicans  had  7  seats; 
a  group  of  "Nationalists,"  3;  the  Independents,  i;  and  the  "Amaral- 
ists,"  detached  supporters  of  the  ministry,  17.    Before  the  end  of  the 
year  the  Government  lost  its  majority,  and  December  24  a  new 
coalition  cabinet  was  made  up  by  Campos  Henriques,  a  former 
minister  of  justice.1 

II.  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  KINGDOM 

701.  The  Constitution. — Before  speaking  of  the  revolution  of  1910, 
in  consequence  of  which  the  monarchy  was  overthrown  and  the  present 
republic  was  established,  it  is  desirable  that  brief  allusion  be  made  to 
the  governmental  system  of  the  earlier  regime.    The  fundamental  law 

1  On  the  political  history  of  Portugal  since  the  establishment  of  constitutionalism 
see  Cambridge  Modern  History,  XI.,  Chap.  20,  XII.,  Chap.  10;  and  Lavisse  et 
Rambaud,  Histoire  Generate,  XL,  Chap.  9,  XII.,  Chap.  9.  A  serviceable  general 
work  is  J.  P.  Oliveira  Martins,  Historia  de  Portugal  (4th  ed.,  Lisbon,  1901).  An 
older  and  more  detailed  treatise  is  H.  Schaefer,  Geschichte  von  Portugal  (2d  ed., 
Hamburg,  1874),  and  a  useful  survey  is  R.  de  Vezeley,  Le  Portugal  politique  (Paris, 
1890).  For  a  good  brief  survey  of  Portuguese  party  politics  see  A.  Marvaud, 
La  crise  en  Portugal  et  les  Elections  d'avril  1908,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques, 
July,  1908. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF   PORTUGAL  635 

in  operation  in  1910  was  the  Carta  Constitutional  of  1826,  remodelled 
and  liberalized  by  numerous  amendments.  The  revision  accom- 
plished by  the  Additional  Act  of  1852  has  been  mentioned.  An  amend- 
ment of  July  24,  1885,  provided  for  the  gradual  extinction  of  the  right 
of  hereditary  peers  to  sit  in  the  upper  house  and  for  the  representation, 
in  the  Deputies,  of  minorities;  while  three  amendments  of  importance 
during  the  reign  of  Carlos  I.  (1889-1908)  were:  (i)  that  of  March  28, 
1895,  whereby  the  number  of  deputies  was  reduced  from  180  to  120 
and  the  qualifications  requisite  for  the  exercise  of  the  suffrage  were 
overhauled;  (2)  that  of  September  25  of  the  same  year  whereby  the 
elective  portion  of  the  House  of  Peers  was  abolished;  and  (3)  that  of 
August  8,  1901,  by  which  the  conditions  of  election  to  the  House  of 
Deputies  were  revised.  In  its  final  form  the  constitution  was  an 
instrument  of  unusual  length,  comprising  eight  "titles"  and  145  arti- 
cles, some  of  which  were  very  comprehensive.1 

702.  The  Crown  and  the  Ministry. — Provision  was  made  for  the 
exercise  of  four  distinct  categories  of  powers,  i.  e.,  executive,  modera- 
tive,  legislative,  and  judicial.  Of  these  the  first  two  were  lodged  in  the 
sovereign,  the  third  in  the  sovereign  and  Cortes  conjointly,  and  the 
fourth  in  tribunals  established  under  provision  of  the  constitution. 
The  crown  was  vested  permanently  in  the  descendants  of  Dona 
Maria  II.,  of  the  House  of  Braganza,  and,  in  default  thereof,  in  the 
nearest  collateral  line.  The  succession  was  regulated  on  the  principle 
of  primogeniture,  with  preference  to  the  male  line,  and  during  a  sover- 
eign's minority  the  regency  devolved  upon  the  nearest  relative,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  succession,  who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-five. 
Associated  with  the  sovereign  was  a  ministry  and  a  council  of  state. 
The  ministry  consisted  of  a  premier,  usually  without  portfolio,  and  a 
variable  number  of  heads  of  departments  (in  1910,  seven),2  and  it  was 
a  principle  of  the  constitution  that,  the  crown  being  legally  irresponsi- 
ble, no  executive  act  might  be  adjudged  valid  unless  signed  by  one  or 
more  of  the  members  of  the  ministerial  group.  For  all  of  their  acts  the 
ministers  were  responsible  nominally  to  the  Cortes,  although  in  point 

1  The  text  of  the  constitution  was  published  by  the  state  under  the  title  of  Carta 
Constitucional  da  Monarchia  Portugueza  .  .  .  e  Diplomas  Correlatives  (Lisbon, 
1890).    An  annotated  translation  is  in  Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  145-179- 
An  excellent  treatise  is  J.  J.  Tavares  de  Medeiros,  Das  Staatsrecht  des  Konigs- 
reichs  Portugal  (Freiburg,  1892),  in  Marquardsen's  Handbuch.    Important  Portu- 
guese works  include  L.  P.  Coimbre,  Estudios  sobre  a  Carta  Constitucional  de  1814 
e  Acto  Addicional  de  1852  (Lisbon,  1878-1880),  and  Coelho  da  Rocha,  Ensaio  sobre 
a  Historia  do  Governo  e  da  Legislacao  de  Portugal. 

2  Foreign  Affairs,  Interior,  Finance,  Justice  and  Worship,  Wa?,  Marine  and 
Colonies,  and  Public  Works. 


636  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

of  fact  the  turbulent  state  of  politics  rendered  such  responsibility 
nearly  impossible  to  enforce.  The  council  of  state  was  a  body  com- 
posed of  the  crown  prince  (when  of  the  age  of  eighteen)  and  of  twelve 
men  appointed  by  the  king  for  life,  usually  from  present  or  past  minis- 
ters. It  was  required  that  the  council  be  consulted  in  all  affairs  of 
weight  and  in  general  measures  of  public  administration,  especially 
those  relating  to  the  declaration  of  war,  the  conclusion  of  peace,  and 
the  conduct  of  diplomatic  negotiations.1 

Aside  from  participation  in  legislation,  the  powers  of  the  crown 
(exercised  at  least  nominally  through  the  intermediary  of  the  ministers 
and  councillors)  were,  as  has  been  said,  of  two  categories,  executive 
and  moderative.  The  powers  of  an  executive  character  were  of  the 
usual  sort,  i.  e.,  the  appointment  of  civil,  military,  and  ecclesiastical 
officials;  the  conduct  of  foreign  relations;  the  promulgation  of  the  laws, 
and  of  decrees,  instructions,  and  regulations  requisite  to  the  proper 
execution  of  the  laws;  the  ordering,  not  less  frequently  than  quad- 
rennially, of  an  election  of  a  new  Cortes;  and  the  supervision,  in  con- 
formity with  the  constitution,  of  "all  things  which  bear  upon  the 
internal  and  external  security  of  the  state."  2  Among  modern  con- 
stitutions those  of  Portugal  and  Brazil  are  unique  in  the  distinction 
drawn  between  powers  that  are  executive  and  powers  that  are  "  mod- 
erative." Under  the  head  of  moderative  powers  the  Portuguese  con- 
stitution vested  in  the  crown  the  nomination  of  peers,  the  convening 
of  the  Cortes  in  extraordinary  session,  approval  of  the  measures  of  the 
Cortes  to  the  end  that  they  might  acquire  the  force  of  law,  the  pro- 
roguing and  adjourning  of  the  Cortes  and  the  dissolving  of  the  House 
of  Deputies,  the  appointing  and  dismissing  of  ministers,  the  granting 
of  amnesties,  and  the  remitting  or  reducing  of  penalties  imposed  upon 
offenders  by  judicial  sentence.  The  theory  was  that  these  were  powers 
which  the  sovereign  exercised  in  the  capacity  of  mediator  between  the 
several  organs  of  the  governmental  system,  and  by  the  constitution  it 
was  declared  that  this  moderative  power  was  the  keystone  of  the  entire 
political  organization.  The  distinction,  however,  while  from  a  certain 
point  of  view  logical  enough,  does  not  appear  to  have  possessed  much 
practical  importance. 

703.  The  Cortes. — Powers  of  a  legislative  character  were  vested  in 
the  sovereign  conjointly  with  a  parliament  of  two  chambers,  the 
Camara  dos  Pares,  or  House  of  Peers,  and  the  Camara  dos  Deputados, 
or  House  of  Deputies.  Collectively,  the  two  houses  were  known  as  the 
Cortes  Feraes,  or,  more  briefly,  the  Cortes.  Until  1885  the  House  of 

*Arts.  107-112.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  168-169. 
'Arts.  75-77.    Ibid.,  II.,  162-164. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  637 

Peers  consisted  of  members  of  two  classes,  those  who  sat  by  hereditary 
right  and  those  who  were  nominated  by  the  crown  for  life.  By  the 
constitutional  amendment  of  July  24,  1885,  hereditary  peerages  were 
put  in  the  way  of  gradual  abolition  and  it  was  stipulated  that  when 
they  should  have  been  extinguished  the  chamber  should  be  composed 
of  princes  of  the  royal  blood,  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  Portugal 
proper,  100  members  appointed  by  the  king  for  life,  and  50  members 
elected  every  new  parliament  by  the  lower  chamber.  By  amendment 
of  September  25, 1895,  however,  the  50  elective  peerages  were  abolished 
and  the  number  of  royal  appointees  was  reduced  to  90.  In  1910, 
therefore,  the  chamber  was  made  up  of  (i)  princes  of  the  royal  blood 
who  had  attained  the  age  of  twenty-five;  (2)  surviving  peers  whose 
hereditary  right  antedated  1885,  together  with  their  immediate  suc- 
cessors; (3)  the  Patriarch  of  Lisbon  and  the  archbishops  and  bishops 
of  the  continental  territory  of  the  kingdom;  and  (4)  the  90  life  peers 
nominated  by  the  crown.  In  the  nomination  of  peers  the  crown  was 
restricted  only  by  the  requirement  that  members  must  have  attained 
the  age  of  forty  and  must  be  able  to  meet  a  considerable  property 
qualification. 

The  House  of  Deputies,  as  regulated  by  the  law  of  August  8,  1901, 
was  composed  of  155  members,  of  whom  148  represented  the  26 
electoral  circles  of  Portugal,  the  Azores,  and  Madeira,1  and  7  repre- 
sented the  colonies.  By  amendment  of  1885  provision  was  made 
for  the  representation  of  minorities,  and  of  the  155  members  in  1910, 
35  sat  as  minority  representatives.  This  result  was  attained  through 
an  arrangement  whereby  in  circles  which  elected  more  than  one  deputy 
each  elector  voted  for  one  or  two  fewer  than  the  number  of  seats  to  be 
filled.  Deputies  were  chosen  by  direct  election,  and  in  the  choice  all 
male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  were  entitled  to  participate, 
provided  they  paid  taxes  aggregating  500  reis  (about  56  cents)  an- 
nually or  were  able  to  read  and  write.  Convicts,  beggars,  bankrupts, 
domestic  servants,  workingmen  permanently  employed  by  the  state, 
and  soldiers  and  sailors  below  the  rank  of  commissioned  officer  were 
disqualified.  In  point  of  fact,  the  prevalence  of  poverty  and  of  illit- 
eracy operated  to  confine  the  franchise  within  very  narrow  limits. 
Peers,  naturalized  aliens,  persons  not  qualified  to  vote,  and  certain 
employees  of  the  state  were  ineligible  for  election,  and  deputies  were 
required  to  possess  an  income  of  not  less  than  400  milreis  ($425) 
annually,  or  to  be  graduates  of  a  professional,  secondary,  or  higher 
school.  After  1892  no  deputies,  save  those  representing  the  colonies, 
were  paid  salaries. 

1  The  Azores  and  Madeira  are  regarded  as  integral  parts  of  the  nation. 


638  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

Sessions  of  the  Cortes  were  required  to  be  opened  by  the  crown  on 
the  second  day  of  January  of  each  year.  According  to  the  amendment 
of  July  24, 1885,  a  regular  session  lasted  three  months  and  each  Cortes, 
unless  sooner  dissolved,  lasted  three  years.  The  president  and  vice- 
president  of  the  House  of  Peers  were  appointed  by  the  crown;  like- 
wise the  corresponding  officials  of  the  House  of  Deputies,  from  a  list 
of  five  nominees  presented  by  that  body.  Each  chamber  was  author- 
ized to  choose  its  own  secretaries,  to  pass  upon  the  qualifications  of 
its  members,  and  to  frame  its  rules  of  procedure.  Except  at  times  when 
the  welfare  of  the  state  demanded  secrecy,  sessions  were  required  to  be 
public.  To  the  lower  chamber  was  committed  the  initiative  in  all 
matters  pertaining  to  taxation,  the  recruiting  of  troops,  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  administrative  offices,  and  the  consideration  of  propositions 
submitted  by  the  executive.  Upon  it,  likewise,  was  conferred  exclusive 
power  to  impeach  ministers  and  councillors  of  state.  The  right  to 
initiate  measures  in  general  was  vested  in  each  of  the  two  houses,  as 
well  as  in  the  Government.  Ministers  were  privileged  to  attend  legisla- 
tive sessions  and  to  participate  in  debate.  It  was  required  that  the 
sovereign  should  give  or  refuse  his  approval  of  every  measure  within  a 
month  after  it  should  have  been  presented  to  him.1 

704.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government. — The  judicial  hierarchy 
consisted  of  193  courts  of  first  instance,  one  in  each  of  an  equal  number 
of  comarcas,  or  districts;  three  courts  of  appeal,  sitting  at  Lisbon, 
Oporto,  and  Ponta  Delgada  (in  the  Azores) ;  and  a  Supreme  Court  at 
Lisbon.  Judges  were  appointed  by  the  crown,  and  were  irremovable 
save  in  consequence  of  judicial  sentence.  In  the  trial  of  criminal 
cases  the  English  jury  system  was  in  vogue,  although  it  operated  but 
indifferently.  The  functions  of  the  Supreme  Court  were  those  of 
hearing  appeals  from  the  inferior  tribunals,  trying  cases  involving 
judges  of  the  appellate  courts  and  members  of  the  diplomatic  corps, 
and  deciding  conflicts  of  jurisdiction.2 

Early  in  the  nineteenth  century  continental  Portugal  was  divided 
for  administrative  purposes  into  six  provinces,  delimited  in  a  large 
measure  in  accordance  with  the  physical  configuration  of  the  country. 
In  1836  the  province  ceased  to  be  an  administrative  unit  and,  after  a 
period  of  readjustment,  there  was  established  by  law  of  March  18.. 
1842,  an  administrative  hierarchy  which  in  its  more  important  aspects 
has  survived  to  the  present  day.  Under  that  measure  the  realm  was 
divided  into  21  districts  (17  continental  and  4  insular),  292  concelhos, 
or  communes  (263  continental  and  29  insular),  and  3,960 /regMOtffer,  or 

1  Arts.  45-62.    Dodd,  Modern  Constitutions,  II.,  156-159. 

2  Arts.  118-131.    Ibid.,  II.,  169-171. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  639 

parishes  (3,788  continental  and  172  insular).  Until  1910  the  govern- 
ment of  the  district  was  vested  in  a  commission  consisting  of  two  mem- 
bers appointed  by  the  central  authorities  and  three  elected  triennially 
by  delegates  from  the  communal  councils.  Of  the  two  centrally 
appointed  members,  one,  the  governor,  presided  over  the  commission; 
the  other  was  an  administrative  auditor.  Among  the  functions  of  the 
commission  was  that  of  sitting  as  an  administrative  court.  The  com- 
mune was  governed  by  a  mayor,  appointed  by  the  central  authorities 
on  nomination  of  the  governor  of  the  district,  and  a  council  of  five  to 
fifteen  members  elected  on  a  single  ticket  by  the  communal  voters. 
The  council  was  presided  over,  not  by  the  mayor,  but  by  one  of  its 
own  members.  The  governing  agencies  of  the  parish  were  an  elected 
council  (junta  de  parochia),  presided  over  by  the  parish  priest,  and  the 
regidor,  named  by  the  district  governor  to  represent  the  interests  of  the 
central  government.  Throughout  the  entire  system  the  preponderat- 
ing fact  was  the  thoroughgoing  centralization  which,  through  the 
governors,  mayors,  and  regadores,  the  authorities  at  Lisbon  were  able 
to  maintain. 

III.  THE  REVOLUTION  OF  1910 

706.  Political  Unsettlement,  1908-1910.— The  period  of  two  and  a 
half  years  which  elapsed  between  the  accession  of  Manoel  II.,  in 
February,  1908,  and  his  deposition,  in  October,  1910,  was  one  of  con- 
tinued political  stress.  The  sovereign  was  youthful,  inexperienced, 
and  lacking  in  political  training.  His  advisers  were  divided  in  their 
counsels  and  impelled  largely  by  selfish  motives,  and  in  the  teeth  of 
rapidly  spreading  republican  and  socialist  propaganda  the  old  dynastic 
parties  kept  up  unremittingly  their  unseemly  recriminations.  In 
February,  1909,  the  king  called  into  consultation  the  leaders  of  the 
various  monarchist  groups  and  sought  to  impress  upon  them  the 
necessity  of  co-operation,  and  when  the  Cortes  was  convened,  March  i, 
the  Speech  from  the  Throne  announced  optimistically  a  programme 
of  constructive  legislation,  embracing,  among  other  things,  the  enact- 
ment of  more  liberal  press  laws,  a  reform  of  primary  education,  and  a 
readjustment  of  taxation.  Within  the  Cortes,  however,  it  was  found 
impossible  to  carry  any  one  of  the  measures  proposed  and,  March  29, 
the  Henriquez  ministry,  after  only  three  months  in  office,  resigned. 
During  the  remainder  of  the  year  three  successive  ministries  were  set 
up:  that  of  General  Sebastiano  Telles,  which  lasted  only  from  April  n 
until  May  4;  that  of  Wencelao  de  Lima,  extending  from  May  4  to 
December  21;  and  that  of  Beirao,  which  continued  from  December  21 
to  early  June  of  the  following  year.  The  De  Lima  cabinet  was  formed 


640  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

from  elements  which  stood  largely  outside  the  swirl  of  party  politics, 
but  the  Republican  and  Regenerador  opposition  was  so  intense  that 
nothing  could  be  accomplished  by  it.  The  Beirao  government  by 
which  it  was  succeeded  was  composed  entirely  of  Progressives.  The 
Speech  from  the  Throne  at  the  convening  of  the  Cortes,  January  2, 
1910,  ignored  completely  the  grim  realities  of  the  political  situation. 
Ostensibly  to  afford  the  Beirao  ministry  an  opportunity  to  formulate  a 
programme,  the  session  was  adjourned  until  March  3,  at  which  time 
the  members  reassembled,  only  to  be  sent  back  again  to  their  homes 
until  June  i.  At  the  second  reassembling  the  ministry  was  opposed 
with  such  virulence  that  it  at  once  retired  and,  after  some  delay,  the 
Regeneradors  came  into  power  under  Teixeira  de  Sousa.  The  Cortes 
was  dissolved  and  a  national  election,  accompanied  by  grave  disorders, 
was  held,  August  28.  At  the  election  the  Regeneradors  obtained  80 
seats,  the  Progressives  43,  the  Republicans  14  (twice  as  many  as  they 
had  ever  obtained  before),  and  the  Independents  2.1  The  new  Cortes 
assembled  September  23;  but  two  days  later  it  was  adjourned  until 
December  12,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  it  never  sat  again. 

706.  Overthrow  of  the  Monarchy. — During  many  months  a  plot 
had  been  ripening  in  Republican  circles  looking  toward  the  deposition 
of  the  king,  the  overthrow  of  the  monarchy,  and  the  proclamation  of 
a  republic.  By  reason  of  the  confusion  and  repression  which  pre- 
vailed perennially  in  Portuguese  politics,  the  actual  strength,  numer- 
ically and  otherwise,  of  republicanism  in  the  kingdom  in  1910  cannot 
be  known.  But  it  is  sufficiently  clear  that  the  propaganda  of  the  past 
thirty  years  had  borne  much  fruit  and  that  among  the  artisan,  tra'der, 
and  small  burgher  classes,  and  especially  in  the  ranks  of  the  army  and 
the  navy,  the  enemies  of  the  monarchy  had  come  to  be  numerous  and 
influential.  The  leaders  of  the  republican  movement  represented,  on 
the  whole,  the  best  educated  and  most  progressive  elements  of  the 
country — largely  lawyers,  physicians,  journalists  and  other  men  of  the 
professions  and  of  business.  In  the  later  summer  of  1910  various 
intimations  of  a  far-reaching  revolutionary  plot  were  received  by  the 
Government  and  the  date  (September  14)  which  was  at  one  time  fixed 
for  the  insurrection  proved  an  impracticable  one  because  the  au- 
thorities became  aware  of  the  project  and  subverted  the  republican 
plans  by  ordering  the  warships  on  that  day  to  quit  the  Tagus.  Within 
official  circles  it  was  generally  assumed  that  the  revolutionists,  balked 
once,  would  return  to  the  project.  The  crash  came,  however,  at  a 

1  Ten  of  the  fourteen  Republican  deputies  were  elected  in  Lisbon.  The  popular 
vote  in  that  city  was:  Republicans,  15,104;  Monarchists  of  all  parties,  9,108.  In 
1908  the  numbers  were  13,074  and  10,982  respectively. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  641 

moment  when  the  Government  was  entirely  off  its  guard,  and  its 
effects  were  unexpectedly  summary.  The  immediate  incident  by 
which  it  was  precipitated  was  the  assassination  in  Lisbon,  October  3, 
of  a  distinguished  Republican  member  of  the  Cortes,  Dr.  Miguel  Bom- 
barda.  Whether  justly  or  not,  the  assassination  was  interpreted  by 
the  populace  as  a  political  crime,  and  to  the  disaffected  elements  of  the 
army  and  navy  the  occasion  seemed  ripe  for  the  execution  of  the  con- 
templated coup.  October  4  open  revolt  broke  out  among  the  national 
troops,  and  during  the  ensuing  forty-eight  hours  a  handful  of  soldiers 
and  sailors,  aided  by  armed  civilians,  acquired  the  mastery  of  the 
capital,  put  the  king  to  flight,  won  over  the  country  to  their  cause, 
and  proclaimed  the  establishment  of  a  republican  form  of  government. 
The  revolutionists  were  organized,  the  royalists  were  not,  and  the 
defeat  of  the  latter  was  complete.  It  was  also  substantially  bloodless. 
King  Manoel,  and  the  queen-mother  Amelia,  contriving  an  escape 
from  the  royal  palace,  made  their  way  to  Eraceira,  and  thence  to 
Gibraltar.  Subsequently  they  were  conveyed  to  England. 

707.  Measures  of  the  Provisional  Government. — Meanwhile, 
October  5,  there  was  established  at  Lisbon  a  provisional  government 
composed  of  nine  ministers  and  presided  over  by  the  scholar  and 
literatteur,  Theophile  Braga.  The  members  of  this  government  were 
drawn  principally  from  the  group  of  Republican  deputies  representing 
the  Lisbon  constituencies.  A  few  had  held  high  office  under  the  mon- 
archy, but  most  of  them,  including  Braga,  were  men  of  little  or  no 
experience  in  administrative  work.  The  flight  of  the  king  and  the 
collapse  of  the  monarchist  cause  cleared  the  way  for  a  speedy  estab- 
lishment of  the  new  order,  and  without  awaiting  a  formal  remodelling 
of  the  constitution,  the  Braga  government  proceeded  to  carry  into 
execution  a  number  of  features  of  the  Republican  programme.  Oc- 
tober 7  it  promised  amnesty  to  political  and  press  exiles,  the  revocation 
of  various  illiberal  press  and  judicial  laws,  the  suppression  of  summary 
magisterial  powers,  and  a  long  list  of  other  administrative  and  judicial 
reforms.  October  18  it  abolished  the  monarchy  and  proscribed  forever 
the  royal  house  of  Braganza.  On  the  same  day  it  abolished  likewise 
the  Council  of  State  and  the  House  of  Peers,  together  with  all  hered- 
itary titles  and  privileges.  In  the  course  of  further  measures  of  reform 
relating  to  public  finance,  agriculture,  education,  religion,  and  social 
welfare,  it  issued  a  new  electoral  law  and  effected  arrangements  for  the 
convening  of  a  national  assembly  to  which  should  be  committed  the 
task  of  framing  a  republican  constitution.  The  electoral  decree  of 
March  15, 1911,  conferred  the  franchise  upon  all  Portuguese  citizens  of 
the  age  of  twenty-one  who  under  the  monarchy  were  entitled  to  its 


642  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

exercise,  and  upon  all,  in  addition,  who  were  able  to  read  and  write, 
barring  soldiers,  bankrupts,  and  ex-convicts.  The  two  cities,  Lisbon, 
and  Oporto,  were  created  electoral  districts  in  each  of  which  eight 
members  were  to  be  chosen  by  scrutin  de  liste  after  the  Belgian,  or 
d'Hondt,  plan  of  proportional  representation,  and  the  remainder  of 
the  country  (including  the  colonies)  was  divided  into  districts  in  each 
of  which  four  members  were  to  be  chosen,  also  with  provision  for  the 
representation  of  minorities. 

708.  The  Constitution  Framed  and  the  Government  Organized. — 
The  elections  to  the  Constituent  Assembly  took  place  May  28,  1911. 
There  were  no  monarchist  candidates  and,  there  having  been  neither 
time  nor  occasion  for  the  appearance  of  serious  differences  among  the 
Republicans,  the  event  was  attended  by  little  excitement  and  by  no 
disorder.  In  many  districts  the  candidates  approved  by  the  Provi- 
sional Government  were  unopposed.  The  Assembly  was  convened 
June  19.  By  unanimous  vote  of  its  192  members  the  decree  by  which 
the  monarchy  had  been  abolished  and  the  Braganza  dynasty  banished 
was  enacted  into  law,  whereupon  the  body  addressed  itself  to  the 
framing  of  a  budget  and  the  adoption  of  organic  laws  relating  to  the 
nature  and  manner  of  exercise  of  the  political  powers  of  the  republic. 
A  draft  of  the  constitution,  framed  by  the  Republican  leaders,  was 
read  to  the  delegates  July  3,  and  August  18  it  was  voted,  amid  general 
acclamations,  almost  without  modification.  The  presidential  election 
was  fixed  for  August  23.  Of  the  two  principal  candidates,  Dr.  Manoel 
Arriaga  represented  the  more  moderate  wing  of  the  Republican  element, 
Dr.  Machado  Santos  (the  provisional  president)  the  more  radical. 
Dr.  Arriaga  was  elected  by  a  vote  of  121  to  86.  August  24  the  Assem- 
bly terminated  its  proceedings  and  the  new  constitution  was  put  in 
operation.  The  first  cabinet,  presided  over  by  Joao  Chagas,  was 
announced  at  the  beginning  of  September.  It  was  at  this  point  that 
France,  Spain,  and  a  number  of  other  European  powers  for  the  first 
time  recognized  officially  the  republic's  existence.  The  difficulties 
encountered  by  the  new  regime — royalist  invasions,  outbreaks  of 
disaffection,  strikes,  lack  of  funds — were  numerous.  Not  the  least 
serious  was  the  inevitable  rise  of  differences  among  the  Republicans 
themselves.  During  the  autumn  of  1911  the  Moderates  split  into  two 
rival  groups,  and  the  more  important  of  them,  led  by  Dr.  Almeida, 
definitely  withdrew  its  support  from  the  Government.  The  result 
was  a  ministerial  crisis,  and  November  7  the  Chagas  cabinet  resigned. 
The  new  "ministry  of  concentration"  formed  by  the  radical  Vascon- 
cellos  was  composed  of  eight  members  divided  almost  equally  between 
the  Moderates  and  the  Democrats.  In  more  recent  days  the  lines  of 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  643 

party  cleavage  have  tended  to  be  accentuated  and  the  stability,  if 
not  the  existence,  of  the  republic  to  be  increasingly  menaced.  In  June, 
1912,  a  new  ministry  was  constituted  under  Leite,  in  which  all  of  the 
groups  in  the  lower  chamber  were  represented.  There  is  reason  to 
apprehend  that,  in  the  event  of  the  survival  of  the  republic,  the  out- 
come will  be  at  best  but  the  resuscitation,  under  other  names  and 
forms,  of  the  long-endured  rotativist  regime. 

IV.  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1911 

709.  Constitutional  Guarantees:  Amendment. —  Aside  from  five 
articles  of  a  temporary  nature,  the  constitution  of  1911  is  arranged  in 
eighty- two  articles,  grouped  in  seven  "titles"  or  divisions.  The  two 
divisions  of  principal  length  are  those  which  relate  to  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  the  individual  and  the  organs  and  exercise  of  sovereign 
power.  The  guarantees  extended  the  individual  comprise  a  bill  of 
rights  hardly  paralleled  in  comprehensiveness  among  the  constitu- 
tions of  European  nations.  To  Portuguese  citizens  and  to  aliens  res- 
ident in  the  country  are  pledged  full  liberty  of  conscience,  freedom  of 
speech,  freedom  of  the  press,  liberty  of  association,  inviolability  of 
domicile  and  of  property,  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus, 
privacy  of  correspondence,  and  freedom  of  employment  and  of  trade 
save  only  when  restriction  is  required  for  the  public  good.  Law  is 
declared  to  be  uniform  for  all  and  no  public  privilege  may  be  enjoyed 
by  reason  of  birth  or  title.  No  one  may  be  required  to  pay  a  tax  which 
has  not  been  levied  by  the  legislative  chambers  or  by  an  administrative 
authority  specifically  qualified  by  law,  and,  save  in  case  of  enumerated 
offenses  of  serious  import,  no  one  may  be  imprisoned  except  upon 
accusation  according  to  the  forms  of  law.  No  one  may  be  compelled 
to  perform  an  act,  or  to  refrain  from  the  performance  of  an  act,  except 
by  warrant  of  law. 

The  constitution  is  subject  to  amendment  under  regulations  of  a 
somewhat  curious  character.  Revision  of  the  fundamental  law  may 
be  undertaken  normally  by  Congress  at  the  end  of  every  decennial 
period,  the  Congress  whose  mandate  coincides  with  the  period  of 
revision  being  endowed  automatically  with  constituent  powers  and  the 
process  of  revision  differing  hi  no  respect  from  that  of  ordinary  legisla- 
tion. At  the  end  of  a  five-year  period  from  the  date  of  promulgation, 
however,  amendment  may  be  undertaken,  providing  two-thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  chambers  sitting  jointly  vote  favorably.  Under  all 
circumstances  amendments  must  be  specific  rather  than  general,  and 
in  no  case  may  an  amendment  be  received  or  debated  which  has  for 
its  object  the  abolition  of  the  republican  form  of  government. 


644  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

710.  The  President  and  the  Ministry. — Sovereignty  is  lodged  in  the 
nation,  and  the  organs  of  the  sovereign  will  are  the  independent  but 
supposedly  harmonious  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  authorities. 
The  powers  of  the  executive  are  exercised  by  the  President  and  the 
ministers.  The  President  is  chosen  by  the  two  houses  of  Congress 
assembled  in  joint  session  sixty  days  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the 
presidential  term.  Voting  is  by  secret  ballot  and  a  two-thirds  majority 
is  required  for  election,  although  in  default  of  such  a  majority  choice 
is  made  on  the  third  ballot  by  simple  plurality  between  the  two  can- 
didates receiving  the  largest  number  of  votes.  If  the  office  falls  vacant 
unexpectedly  the  chambers  choose  in  the  same  manner  a  president  to 
complete  the  unexpired  term.  The  term  is  four  years,  and  after  re- 
tiring from  office  an  ex-president  may  not  be  re-elected  for  a  full  term 
prior  to  the  lapse  of  four  more  years.  Only  native  Portuguese  citizens 
at  least  thirty-five  years  of  age  are  eligible.  Without  the  permission 
of  Congress  the  President  may  not  absent  himself  from  the  national 
territory,  and  he  may  be  removed  from  office  by  the  vote  of  two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  the  chambers  sitting  jointly.  The  duties  of  the 
President  are,  among  other  things,  to  negotiate  treaties  and  to  repre- 
sent the  nation  in  its  external  relations  generally,  to  appoint  and  dis- 
miss the  ministers  and  public  officials,  to  summon  the  Congress  in 
extraordinary  session,  to  promulgate  the  laws  of  Congress,  together 
-with  the  instructions  and  regulations  necessary  for  their  enforcement, 
and  to  remit  and  commute  penalties.  If  two-thirds  of  the  members 
of  the  chambers  so  request,  projected  treaties  of  alliance  must  be  laid 
before  Congress,  and  the  appointment  and  suspension  of  public  officials 
may  be  effected  only  on  proposal  of  the  ministers.  Every  act  of  the 
President  must  be  countersigned  by  at  least  one  minister,  and  every 
minister  is  responsible  politically  and  legally  for  all  acts  which  he 
countersigns  or  executes.  One  member  of  the  ministerial  group, 
designated  by  the  President,  exercises  the  functions  of  premier.  Min- 
isters may  be  members  of  Congress,  and  in  any  case  they  are  privileged 
to  appear  in  the  chambers  to  defend  their  acts.  Among  offenses  for 
which  ministers  may  be  held  to  account  in  the  ordinary  tribunals  the 
constitution  specifies  all  acts  which  tend  to  subvert  the  independence 
of  the  nation,  the  inviolability  of  the  constitution  and  of  the  republican 
form  of  government,  the  political  and  legal  rights  of  the  individual, 
the  internal  peace  of  the  country,  or  the  probity  of  administrative 
procedure.  The  penalty  imposed  for  guilt  in  respect  to  any  of  these 
offenses  is  removal  from  office  and  disqualification  to  hold  office  there- 
after.1 

1  Provisions  relating  to  the  executive  are  contained  in  Arts.  36-55. 


THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  PORTUGAL  645 

711.  Congress. — The  exercise  of  legislative  power  is  vested  exclusively 
in  Congress.  There  are  two  houses,  the  Council  of  Municipalities,  or 
senate,  and  the  National  Council,  or  chamber  of  deputies.  The  mem- 
bers of  both  are  chosen  by  direct  vote  of  the  people.  Senators  are  elected 
for  six  years,  one-half  of  the  body  retiring  triennially.  Each  district 
returns  three  members,  but  to  assure  the  representation  of  minorities 
electors  are  permitted  to  vote  for  but  two.  Members  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies  are  chosen  for  three  years.  Senators  must  be  at  least  thirty-five 
years  of  age  and  deputies  twenty-five.  Congress  is  required  to  meet  in 
regular  session  each  year  on  the  second  day  of  December.  The  period 
of  a  session  is  four  months,  and  a  prorogation  or  an  adjournment  may 
be  ordered  only  by  the  chambers  themselves.  Extraordinary  sessions 
may  be  convoked  by  one-fourth  of  the  members  or  by  the  President. 
Each  chamber  is  authorized  to  judge  the  qualifications  of  its  members, 
to  choose  its  president  and  other  officers,  and  to  fix  its  rules  of  procedure. 
The  presiding  official  at  joint  sessions  is  the  elder  of  the  two  presidents. 
Members  are  accorded  the  usual  privileges  of  speech  and  immunities 
from  judicial  process,  and  they  are  guaranteed  compensation  at  rates 
to  be  regulated  by  law. 

The  functions  and  powers  of  the  chambers  are  enumerated  in  much 
detail.  Most  important  among  them  is  the  enactment,  interpretation, 
suspension,  and  abrogation  of  all  laws  of  the  republic.  Still  more  com- 
prehensive is  the  power  to  supervise  the  operation  of  the  constitution 
and  of  the  laws  and  "to  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  nation." 
More  specifically,  the  chambers  are  authorized  to  levy  taxes,  vote  ex- 
penditures, contract  loans,  provide  for  the  national  defense,  create 
public  offices,  fix  salaries,  regulate  tariffs,  coin  money,  establish  stand- 
ards of  weights  and  measures,  emit  bills  of  credit,  organize  the  judiciary, 
control  the  administration  of  national  property,  approve  regulations 
devised  for  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,  and  elect  the  President  of  the 
republic.  To  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  is  accorded  the  right  to  initiate 
all  measures  relating  to  taxes,  the  organization  of  the  forces  on  land  and 
on  sea,  the  revision  of  the  constitution,  the  prorogation  or  adjournment 
of  legislative  sessions,  the  discussion  of  proposals  made  by  the  President, 
and  the  bringing  of  actions  against  members  of  the  executive  depart- 
ment. Initiative  in  respect  to  all  other  matters  may  be  taken  by  any 
member  of  either  branch  of  Congress  or  by  the  President  of  the  repub- 
lic. A  measure  which  is  adopted  by  a  majority  vote  in  each  of  the  two 
houses  is  transmitted  to  the  President  to  be  promulgated  as  law.  The 
President  possesses  not  a  shred  of  veto  power.  He  is  required  to  promul- 
gate within  fifteen  days  any  measure  duly  enacted;  if  he  fails  to  do  so,  the 
measure  takes  effect  none  the  less.  When  the  chambers  fall  into  disagree- 


646  GOVERNMENTS  OF  EUROPE 

ment  regarding  proposed  changes  in  a  bill,  or  when  one  chamber  rejects  a 
bill  outright,  the  subject  is  debated  and  a  decision  is  reached  in  joint  ses- 
sion. 

712.  The  Judiciary  and  Local  Government. — The  organs  of  judicial 
administration  comprise  courts  of  first  instance,  courts  of  appeal,  and  a 
supreme  tribunal  sitting  at  the  capital.  Judges  are  appointed  for  life, 
but  may  be  removed  from  office  in  accordance  with  procedure  to  be 
established  by  law.  The  employment  of  the  jury  is  optional  with  the 
parties  in  civil  cases  but  obligatory  in  all  criminal  cases  of  serious  import. 
With  respect  to  local  government  the  constitution  goes  no  further  than 
to  lay  down  certain  general  principles  and  to  enjoin  that  the  actual 
working  arrangements  be  regulated  by  subsequent  legislation.  Among 
the  principles  enumerated  are  the  immunity  of  the  local  authorities 
from  intervention  on  the  part  of  the  central  executive  power,  the  revision 
of  the  acts  of  the  public  officials  in  administrative  tribunals,  the  fiscal 
independence  of  the  local  governmental  units,  and,  finally,  the  employ- 
ment for  local  purposes  of  both  proportional  representation  and  the 
referendum.1 

1  A  French  translation  of  the  Portuguese  constitution  of  1911  will  be  found  in 
Revue  du  Droit  Public,  Oct.-Dec.,  1911.  Various  aspects  of  the  revolution  of  1910 
and  of  subsequent  developments  are  discussed  in  E.  J.  Dillon,  Republican  Portugal, 
in  Contemporary  Review,  Nov.,  1910;  R.  Recouly,  La  re"publique  en  Portugal,  in 
Revue  Politique  et  Parlementaire,  Nov.  10,  1910;  W.  Archer,  The  Portuguese  Re- 
public, in  Fortnightly  Review,  Feb.,  1911;  and  A.  Marvaud,  Les  debuts  de  la  r6- 
publique  portugaise,  in  Annales  des  Sciences  Politiques,  March-April  and  May- 
June,  1911.  The  subject  is  covered  briefly  in  V.  de  B.  Cunha,  Eight  Centuries  of 
Portuguese  Monarchy  (London,  1911),  and  A.  Marvaud,  Le  Portugal  et  ses  colonies; 
6tude  politique  et  6conomique  (Paris,  1912). 


INDEX 


Abgeordnetenhaus.  See  Prussia  and 
Austria 

Administration,  development  in  Great 
Britain,  176-179;  present  system, 
180-191;  development  of  Prussian 
system,  265-273;  in  France  under 
Old  Regime,  341-342;  during  Revolu- 
tionary and  Napoleonic  era,  342-343; 
present  system,  345-351;  in  Italy, 
383-385;  in  Austria,  485-488;  in 
Hungary,  506-507;  in  Holland,  532- 
533;  in  Belgium,  55°-5Si;  in  Den- 
mark, 569;  in  Norway,  588;  in  Swe- 
den, 601;  in  Spain,  627-628;  in  Portu- 
gal, 638-639,  646 

Alsace-Lorraine,  original  organization, 
282;  the  Landesausschuss,  283;  move- 
ment for  autonomy,  284;  bill  of  1910, 
285;  present  governmental  system, 
286-287 

Ausgleich.    See  Austria-Hungary 

Austria: — 

—  Abgeordnetenhaus,  composition,  466; 
electoral  system  to   1873,  466-467; 
Taaffe  bill  of  1893,  467-468;  electoral 
law  of  1896,  468;  electoral  law  of 
1907, 469-471;  electoral  qualifications 
and  procedure,  471-472;  sessions  and 
procedure,  472-473;  powers,  473~474 

—  Administration,    of   province,   485- 
487;  of  commune,  487-488 

—  Amendment,  of  constitution,  461 

—  Ausgleich,  established,  458-459;  and 
political  parties,  475-476;  nature,  509 

—  Babenbergs,  442 

—  Badeni,  electoral  bill,  468;  ministry, 

479 

—  Beck,  carries  electoral  reform,  460- 

470 

—  Bienerth,  ministry,  482 

—  Bohemia,  language  question  in,  480 

—  Charles  V.,  443 

647 


Austria : — Continued 

—  Christian  Socialist  Party,  483 

—  Citiaens,  rights  of,  462 

—  Civil  list,  464 

—  Commune,  organization,  487-488 

—  Constitution,  promulgated  in  1848, 
454;  abrogated,  455;  experiments  of 
1860-1861,  456-457;  texts,  460;  style 
of  government,  460-461;  amendment, 
461 

—  Courts,  ordinary,  483-484;  adminis- 
trative, 484-485 

—  Crown.    See  Emperor 

—  Diet,  provision  for  in  constitution  of 
1848,  454 

—  Diploma  of  1860,  456 

—  Elections,  original  system,  466;  law 
of  1873,467;  Taaffe  bill  of  1893,  467- 
468;  law  of  1896,  468;  law  of  1907, 
469-471;   qualifications   and   proce- 
dure, 471-472;  of  1901,  481;  of  1907, 
481-482;  of  1911,  482-483 

—  Emperor,  status,  463;  powers,  464; 
relation  with  ministries,  464 

—  Franchise,  law  of  1873,  467;  Taaffe 
bill  of  1893,  467-468;  law  of  1896, 
468;  law  of  1907,  469-471;  present 
system,  471-472 

—  Francis  I.,  proclaimed  emperor  of 
Austria,  445 

—  Francis  Joseph  I.,  accession,  455; 
constitutional  projects,  456-457;  and 
Compromise  of  1867,  459;  encourages 
electoral  reform,  469 

—  Gautsch,  promises  electoral  reform, 
469;  ministries,  480-481 

—  German  Liberal   Party,   rise,   476; 
rule,    476-477;    in    the    opposition, 
477-478;  return  to  power,  478-479 

—  Germans,  in  Empire,  475 

—  Hapsburgs,  442 

—  Herrenhaus,   composition,   465;   or- 


648 


INDEX 


Austria :— Continued 
ganization  and  powers,  466;  sessions 
and  procedure,  472-473 

—  House  of  Lords.    See  Herrenhaus 

—  House    of    Representatives.      See 
A  bgeordnetenhaus 

—  Hungary,  establishment  of  power  in, 
443;  encroachment  in,  449-450;  sup- 
pression of  revolution  in,  455-456; 
constitutional  experiments  with,  457- 
458;  Ausgleich  established,  458-459 

—  Italians,  in  Empire,  475 

—  Joseph  IL,  reforms,  \\/( 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  Karlowitz,  Peace  of,  443,  448 

—  Korber,  ministry,  480-481 

—  Landesausschuss,  485 

—  Landtag,  of  province,  485-487 

—  Maria    Theresa,     development    of 
autocracy  under,  \*\\ 

—  Mettemich,  policies,  450-451;  com- 
bats liberalism,  452;  fall,  453 

—  Ministry,  composition,  464;  respon- 
sibility, 464-465 

—  Parliament,   composition,   465-466; 
electoral    system,  466-472;   sessions 
and    procedure,    472-473;     powers, 

473-474 

—  Parliamentarism,  nature  of,  464-465; 
nadir  of,  480-481 

—  Parties,  centralism  and  federalism, 
475-476;  rule  of  German  Liberals, 
476-477;    during    Taaffe    ministry, 
477-478;  return  of  German  Liberals 
to  power,  478-479;  and  parliamen- 
tary deadlock,  480-481;  and  elections 
of  1907  and  1911,  481-483 

—  Patent  of  1861,  457 

—  Plural  Vote,  under  law  of  1896,  468 

—  Pragmatic    Sanction,    promulgated, 

499 

—  Province,    executive    officials,    485; 
Landtag,  485-487 

—  Race,  political  significance  of,  470, 
474-475,  479-480 

—  Reichsgericht,  484 

—  Reichsrath.      See    Herrenhaus    and 
A  bgeordnetenhaus 

—  Revolution,   of    1848,  constitution- 
alism established,  454;  reaction,  455- 
456 


Austria : — Continued 

—  Russia,  intervenes  in  Austria,  455 

—  Slavs,  in  Empire,  475 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  demands 
for  electoral  reform,  469-470;  victory 
in  1911,  483 

—  Succession,  rules  of,  449,  463 
-—Taaffe,  electoral  bill  of  1893,  467- 

468;  ministry,  477-478 

—  Universal  Suffrage  Law,  adoption, 
469-470;    racial    and    geographical 
distribution  of  seats,  470;  electoral 
qualifications  and  procedure,  471-472 

—  Vienna,  Congress  of,  r61e  of  Austria 
in,  450 

—  Vorsteher,  487 
Austria-Hungary  (see  also  Austria  and 

Hungary) : — 

—  Ausgleich,  established,  458-459;  na- 
ture, 509 

—  Bosnia,  annexation,   514;   constitu- 
tion, 515;  governmental  system,  515- 
516;  electoral  arrangements,  516 

—  Contributions.    See  Finances. 

—  Delegations,   composition   and   ses- 
sions, 513;  powers,  5I3-SI4 

—  Emperor,  status,  510 

—  Finance,  ministry  of,  511;  arrange- 
ments concerning,  512 

—  Foreign  Affairs,  ministry  of,  510 

—  Herzegovina,  annexation,  514;  con- 
stitution, 515;  government  and  elec- 
toral system,  515-516 

—  King.    See  Emperor 

—  Ministry,  of  foreign  affairs,  510;  of 
war,  511;  of  finance,  511 

—  War,  ministry  of,  511 

Baden,   granted   a   constitution,    197; 

special  privileges,  208;  governmental 

system,  279 
Bavaria,  made  a  kingdom,  194;  granted 

a  constitution,  197;  special  privileges, 

208;  governmental  system,  275-276 
Belgium: — 

—  Administration,  organization  of  prov- 
ince, 550-551;  organization  of  com- 
mune, 551 

—  Amendment,  process,  535 

—  Arrondissement,  electoral  unit,  543- 
545;  judicial  unit,  549 


INDEX 


649 


Belgium : — Continued 

—  Austrian  Netherlands,   annexed   to 
France,    517-518;    incorporated    in 
United  Netherlands,  519 

—  Catholic  Party,  and  electoral  reform, 
540-541;  and  proportional  represen- 
tation, 542-543 ;  and  elections  of  1906- 
1910,  545-546;  triumph  in  1912,  546- 
547 

—  Commune,  organization,  551 

—  Conservative  Party,   and  electoral 
reform,  540-541 

—  Constitution,  of  1815,  519-520;  of 
1831  promulgated,  534;  democratic 
character,  534-535;  amendment,  535 

—  Council,  of  province,  550 

—  Court  of  Cassation,  549 

—  Courts,  organization  and  functions, 
549-550 

—  Crown,  status  and  privileges,  536; 
relation    with    ministry,     536-537; 
powers,  537-538 

—  Elections,  earlier  arrangements,  539- 
540;  law  of  1893,  540-541;  franchise 
to-day,  541-542;  adoption  of  propor- 
tional   representation,    543-545;    of 
1906-1910,  545-546;  of  1912,  546- 
547 

-—Franchise,  prior  to  1893,  539-540; 
law  of  1893,  540~54i;  system  to-day, 
541-542;  demand  for  further  reform, 
547-548 

—  Holland,  separation  from,  520-521 

—  House  of  Representatives,  composi- 
tion, 539;  earlier  electoral  arrange- 
ments, 539-540;  electoral  law  of  1893, 
540-541;  franchise  to-day,  541-542; 
organization  and  procedure,  548-549 

—  Independence,  declared,  520;  recog- 
nized, 521 

—  Jury,  use  of,  550 

—  Leopold  I.,  crowned  king,  521 

—  Liberal  Party,  and  electoral  reform, 
540-541;  favors  proportional  repre- 
sentation, 543;  opposition  to  plural 
vote,  547 

—  Ministry,  composition,  536;  respon- 
sibility, 536-537 

—  Parliament,   composition  and  elec- 
tion of  senators,  538-539;  composition 
of  House   of  Representatives,   539; 


Belgium : — Continued 
electoral   system,    539-542;    propor- 
tional  representation,   543-545;   or- 
ganization and  procedure  of  cham- 
bers, 548-549 

—  Parliamentarism,  536-537 

—  Plural  Vote,  541-542;  opposition  of 
Liberals  and  Socialists,  547-548;  in 
province,  551 

—  Proportional  Representation,  adopt- 
ed, 543;  operation,  543*545 

—  Province,  organization,  550-551 

—  Revolution  of  1830,  520-521 

—  Senate,   composition   and   election, 
538;  qualifications,  539;  organization, 
and  procedure,  548-549 

—  Socialists,  lead  movement  for  elec- 
toral reform,  540-541;  favor  propor- 
tional representation,  543;  opposition 
to  plural  vote,  547-548 

Bismark,  Otto  von,  and  establishment 
of  German  Empire,  199-201;  attitude 
toward    socialism;    231,    reform    of 
Prussian  local  government,  266-267 
Bosnia.    See  Austria-Hungary 
Bundesrath.   See  Germany  and  Switzer- 
land 

Cabinet.    See  England 

Canton,  of  France,  343, 348;  of  Switzer- 
land, 409-422 

Chamber  of  Deputies.  See  France, 
Italy,  Hungary 

Civil  List,  in  Great  Britain,  51-52;  of 
king  of  Prussia,  253;  of  king  of  Italy, 
368 

Committees,  in  English  Parliament, 
123-137;  in  Bundesrath,  220;  V 
Reichstag,  226;  in  Prussian  Landtag 
264;  in  French  Parliament,  325-327 

Commune,  in  Prussia,  272-273;  antiq- 
uity hi  France,  348;  organization,  344- 
351 ;  in  Italy,  385 ;  in  Switzerland,  422; 
in  Austria,  487-488;  in  Holland,  533; 
in  Belgium,  551;  in  Norway,  588;  in 
Spain,  627;  in  Portugal,  638-639 

Congress.    See  Portugal 

Congress  of  Deputies.    See  Spain 

Constitution,  development  of  English, 
2-41;  nature  of  English,  41-47;  of 
German  Confederation  of  1815,  194- 


INDEX 


196;  of  German  Empire,  202-204;  of 
Prussia,  250-252;  succession  in  France 
from  1791,  290-300;  of  Third  Repub- 
lic, 304-306;  succession  in  Italy,  354- 
361;  of  Italy  to-day,  360-367;  of 
Switzerland,  410-416,  431-432;  of 
Austria,  456-461;  of  Hungary,  446- 
448,  489-490;  of  Holland,  5*9-523; 
of  Belgium,  534-535;  of  Denmark, 
5S7-SS9;  of  Norway,  574,  578-579; 
of  Sweden,  589;  succession  in  Spain, 
604-608;  of  Spain  to-day,  611-612; 
of  Portuguese  republic,  642-643 

Cortes.   See  Spain  and  Portugal 

County,  English,  171-184 

Courts,  in  England,  171-175;  hi  Ger- 
many, 243-244;  in  France,  337~34i; 
in  Italy,  381-383;  in  Austria,  483- 
485;  in  Holland,  531-532;  in  Bel- 
gium, 549-550;  in  Denmark,  568-569; 
in  Norway,  587-588;  in  Spain,  626- 
627;  in  Portugal,  638,  646 

Croatia,  government,  507-508 

Crown,  in  Great  Britain,  48-59;  in 
German  Empire,  210-214;  in  Prussia, 
252;  in  Italy,  368-370;  in  Austria, 
463-464;  in  Hungary,  491 ;  in  Holland, 
523-525;  in  Denmark,  554-561;  in 
Norway,  578-585;  in  Sweden,  570- 
571;  590-591,  in  Spain,  613-615;  in 
Portugal,  635-636 

Delegations.    See  Austria-Hungary 
Denmark: — 

—  Administration,  569 

—  Christensen,  ministry,  566-567 

—  Christian  VIII.,  and  reform,  556-567 

—  Christian  IX.,  yields  to  parliamen- 
tary principle,  562 

—  Conservative  Party,  resists  parlia- 
mentary principle,    560-562;   domi- 
nance, 565-566 

—  Constitution,  of  1848,  557;  of  1849 
promulgated,  557;  revised  in  1866, 
558-559;  process  of  amendment,  559 

—  Courts,  general  principles,  568;  or- 
ganization, 568-569;  act  of  1908,  569 

—  Crown,  development,  554-555;  op- 
position to  reform,  556;  status,  559; 
powers,  560;  relations  with  ministry, 
560-561 


Denmark : — Continued 

—  Diet,  of  provinces,  556 

—  Elections,  present  system,  563;  pro- 
jected reform,  564;  of  1906,  567;  of 
1910,  567-568 

—  Estrup,  ministry,  561-562,  565-566 

—  Franchise,     present    system,     563; 
movement  for  reform,  564 

—  Frederick  VI.,  creates  diets,  556 

—  Folkething,  composition,  563;  elec- 
tions, 563-564;  sessions  and  powers, 

564-565 

—  Hojesteret,  568 

—  Holstein,  558 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  Kalmar,  union  of,  553 

—  Kiel,  treaty  of,  554 

—  King.    See  Crown 

—  Kongelov,  555,  557 

—  Landsthing,  composition,  562;  qual- 
ifications, 563;  sessions  and  powers, 

564-565 

—  Lauenburg,  558 

—  Liberal  Party,  pressure  for  parlia- 
mentary system,  560-562;  advent  to 
power,  566 

—  Malmo,  treaty  of,  553 

—  Ministry,  composition,  560-561;  re- 
sponsibility, 561-562;  of  Estrup,  561- 
562,  565-566;  recent  instability,  567- 
568 

—  Norway,  united  with,  553;  separated 
from,  554 

—  Parliament.    See  Rigsdag 

—  Parliamentarism,  560-562 

—  Parties,  rise,  565;  during  Estrup's 
ministry,  565-566;  advent  of  Liberals 
to  power,  566;  since  1903,  566-568 

—  Proportional  Representation,  in  elec- 
tion of  senators,  563 

—  Radical  Party,  567-568 

—  Revolution,  of  1660,  554-555 

—  Rigsdag,  composition,  562-563;  elec- 
toral system,  563-564;  sessions  and 
power,  564-565 

—  Rigsrad,  554 

—  Schleswig,  558 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  567-568 

Elections,  of  British  House  of  Com- 
mons, 92-96;  of  Reichstag,  224-225; 


INDEX 


651 


of  Prussian  Abgeordnetenhaus,  258- 
263;  under  Revolutionary  and  Napo- 
leonic constitutions,  293-294;  present 
system  in  France,  318-322;  in  Italy, 
376-378,  400-402;  in  Switzerland, 
423,  426-428,  435-437;  in  Austria, 
466-483;  in  Holland,  526-530;  in 
Belgium,  539~547;  in  Denmark,  563- 
568;  in  Norway,  581-582,  587;  in 
Sweden,  592-596,  600;  in  Spain,  617- 
618;  624-625;  in  Portugal,  633-642 
England: — 

—  Act  of  Settlement  (1701),  49 

—  Administration.    See  Local  Govern- 
ment 

—  Admiralty  Board,  62 

—  Asquith,  H.,  resolutions  for  reform 
of  Lords,  108 

—  Attainder,  130 

—  Bill  of  Rights,  32 

—  Borough,  in  fifteenth  century,   23; 
franchise  before  1832,  79;  franchise 
extended  in  1832  and  1867,  82-84; 
redistribution  of  parliamentary  seats, 
85 ;  organization  before  1 83  2 , 1 7  7-1 78 ; 
reform   by   Municipal   Corporations 
Act,  178;  kinds,  187;  authorities,  188; 
council  and  its  functions,  189 

—  Budget,  preparation,  136 

—  Cabinet,    origins,    37-38;    relations 
with  Privy  Council,  60;  relations  with 
ministry,  61;  composition,  64;  size, 
65;  selection  of  premier,  66;  selection 
of  other  members,   67-68;   political 
solidarity,     69;     responsibility,     70; 
proceedings,  71-73;  central  position, 

74 

—  Campbell-Bannerman,  Liberal  lead- 
er, 154;  premier,  157 

—  Chamberlain,  Joseph,  and  the  Lib- 
eral Unionists,  151;  tariff  reform  pro- 
gramme, 155 

—  Chancery,  Court  of,  17,  174 

—  Charles  I.,  parliaments  of,  28 

—  Charles  II.,  restoration,  31;  rise  of 
cabinet,  37 

—  Chartists,  82-83 

—  Civil  List,  51-52 

—  Committees,  kinds,   123;  of  whole, 
123;  select  and  sessional,  124;  stand- 
ing,   124-125;   procedure   on   public 


England : — Continued 
bills,  133-134;  on  money  bills,  135- 
136;  on  private  bills,  137 

—  Common  Law,  167-168 

—  Common  Pleas,  Court  of,  17,  174 

—  Commonwealth,  29 

—  Commune  Concilium,  7 

—  Conservative  Party,  origin  of  name, 
147;  mid-century  ministries,  148-150; 
Salisbury  ministries,  151-153;  defeat 
in  1906,  157;  signification  of  nomen- 
clature, 162;  present-day  issues,  163; 
composition,  164 

—  Constitution,  Anglo-Saxon   founda- 
tions,   2-5;    influenced   by   Norman 
Conquest,  6-8;  in  the  Tudor  period, 
18-26;  in  the  Stuart  period,  26-33; 
elements  of  stability  and  change,  34; 
development  since  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, 34-41;  elusiveness,  41;  law  and 
conventions,    42-43;    flexibility   and 
amendment,  44-47 

—  Conventions,    in    English    constitu- 
tion, 43 

—  Corn  Laws,  repeal,  147 

—  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Act, 
95-96 

—  County,  franchise  before  1832,  79; 
franchise    broadened    in    1832,    82; 
franchise    liberalized    in    1867    and 
1884,  84;  court  of,  171;  organization 
before  1832, 176-177;  reform  by  Local 
Government  Act  of  1888,  180;  pres- 
ent administrative  organization,  183; 
council  and  its  functions,  183-184 

—  Court  of  Appeals,  174 

—  Courts,  beginnings  of  great  tribunals, 
17;  county,  171;  justices  of  the  peace, 
171-172;  High  Court,  173;  Court  of 
Appeals,  174;  House  of  Lords,  130; 
Judicial  Committee  of  Privy  Council, 

175 

—  Cromwell,  Oliver,  29-30 

—  Crown,    in   Anglo-Saxon    times,    3; 
effects  of  Norman  Conquest  en,  6; 
independence  under  the  Tudors,  21; 
character  under  early   Stuarts,    26; 
abolished  in  1640,  30;  restoration,  30; 
regulated  by  Bill  of  Rights,  32-33; 
decreased  powers  since  seventeenth 
century,  35;  theoretical  position.  48-, 


652 


INDEX 


England : — Continued 
rules  of  succession,  49;  regencies,  50; 
privileges,  50-52;  the  prerogative,  52; 
executive  powers,  53-55;  legislative 
powers,  55;  veto,  56;  relations  with 
ministry,  56-57;  actual  service,  58; 
reasons  for  survival,  59 

—  Disraeli,  Benjamin,  prime  minister, 
150 

—  District,  rural,  184;  urban,  186 

—  District  and  Parish  Councils  Act  of 
1894,  180 

—  Edward  I.,  and  rise  of  Parliament, 
12-13 

—  Edward  II.,  statute  concerning  Par- 
liament, 15 

—  Elections,  writs,  92;  time  regulations, 
92-93;  polling,  93;  the  campaign,  94; 
expenditures,  95-96 

—  Elizabeth,  strong  government,   21; 
development   of   Parliament   under, 
24-25 

—  Equity,  rules  of,  169 

—  Exchequer,  Court  of,  17,  62,  174 

—  Franchise,  hi  fifteenth  century,  23; 
in  early  nineteenth  century,  79;  ex- 
tended by  Reform  Act  of  1832,  82; 
demands    of    the    Chartists,    82-83; 
modified  in  1867,  83-84;  liberalized 
in  1884,  84-85;  the  system  to-day, 
86-88;  question  of  the  plural  vote, 
89-90;   Franchise  Bill  of   1912,  90; 
woman's  suffrage,  91 

—  Gentleman  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod, 
118 

—  George  III.,  attempted  revival  of 
royal  power,  35 

—  Gladstone,  William  E.,  leadership  of 
Liberals,    148;    first    ministry,    149; 
second    and    third    ministries,    151; 
fourth  ministry,  152 

—  Great  Council,  7 

—  Henry  I.,  charter,  7 

—  Henry  II.,  judicial  measures,  8 

—  Henry  III.,  and  beginnings  of  Parlia- 
ment, 12 

—  Henry  VHL,  strong  government,  19 

—  High  Court  of  Justice,  173-174 

—  House    of    Commons,    origins,    13; 
composition  in  1485,  23;  changes  in 
Tudor  period,  24;  Apology  of  1604, 


England : — Continued 

27;  ascendancy  over  House  of  Lords, 
36;  present  composition,  77;  undem- 
ocratic character  at  opening  of 
nineteenth  century,  77-79;  electoral 
corruption,  80;  early  demands  for  re- 
form, 80;  Reform  Act  of  1832,  81-82; 
Chartist  agitation,  82-83;  Represent- 
ation of  the  People  Act  of  1867,  83- 
84;  Representation  of  the  People  Act 
of  1884,  84-85;  Redistribution  of 
Seats  Act  of  1885,  85;  franchise  and 
franchise  questions  to-day,  86-02; 
electoral  procedure  and  regulations, 
92-96;  sessions,  117;  opening  cere- 
monies, 117-118;  meeting  place  de- 
scribed, 118-120;  hours  of  sittings, 
120;  officers,  121 ;  Speaker,  121-123; 
quorum,  123;  committees,  123-125; 
privileges,  126;  payment  of  members, 
127;  procedure  on  public  bills,  133- 
134;  on  money  bills,  135-136;  on 
private  bills,  137-138;  provisional 
orders,  138;  rules,  139-141;  closure, 
139;  the  guillotine,  140;  votes  and 
divisions,  140-141 

—  House  of  Lords,  origins,  13,  47;  com- 
position in  1485,  22-23;  changes  in 
Tudor  period,  24;  abolished  in  1640, 
29;  restored  in  1660,  31;  loss  of  prior- 
ity to  House  of  Commons,  36,  102; 
composition,    97-101;    qualifications 
of  members,  101 ;  number  of  members, 
101;    question   of   reform,    102-103; 
early  reform  proposals,  103-104;  con- 
flicts with  the  Liberals,  104;  powers 
relating  to  money  bills,  106;  rejection 
of  Finance  Bill  of  1909,  107;  Liberal 
project    of    reform,    108;    Unionist 
proposals,   109;  adoption  of  Parlia- 
ment Act  of  1911,  iio-m;  effects  of 
the  Act,  112-114;  sessions,  117;  open- 
ing ceremonies,  117-118;  sittings  and 
attendance,    125;   officers,    125-126; 
privileges,    127;    judicial    functions, 
130-132;  procedure,  141-142 

—  Humble  Petition  and  Advice,  30 

—  Hundred,  4 

—  Impeachment,  130 

—  Independent  Labor  Party,  165 

—  Instrument  of  Government,  ag 


INDEX 


653 


England : — Continued 

—  Ireland,  union  of  1801,  40-41;  allot- 
ment   of    parliamentary    seats,    85; 
over-representation,  89;  representa- 
tive peers,  98-99;  question  of  Home 
Rule,  150-152 

—  James  I.,  conception  of  monarchy, 
26;  parliaments  of,  28 

—  James  II.,  overthrown,  32 

—  John,  signs  Magna  Carta,  9;  holds 
council  at  Oxford,  12 

—  Jury,  use  of,  171,  172 

—  Justice  of  the  Peace,  functions,  171- 
172 

—  King.    See  Crown 

—  King's  Bench,  Court  of,  17,  174 

—  Labor  Party,  165-167 

—  Lansdowne  Reconstruction  Bill,  100 

—  Law,  origins,  167;  form,  168-169 

—  Legislation,    powers    acquired    by 
Parliament,  14-15 

—  Liberal  Party,  conflict  with  House 
of  Lords,  104;  and  reform,  147;  re- 
generation under  Gladstone,  148-149; 
and  Home  Rule,  150;  secession  of 
Unionists,   151;  rehabilitation,    156; 
electoral  triumph  in  1906,  157;  man- 
date and  performance,  158-159;  con- 
flict   with    House    of    Lords,    159; 
triumph  in  elections  of  1910,  160; 
carry  Parliament  Act  of  1911,  no, 
1 60;   signification  of   nomenclature, 
162;  present-day  issues,  163;  composi- 
tion, 164 

—  Liberal  Unionists,  origins,  151 

—  Local  Government  Act  of  1888,  180 

—  Local  Government  Board,  180,  182 

—  Local  Government,  periods  in  his- 
tory, 176;  before  1835, 176-178;  mid- 
century  confusion  of  areas,  179;  re- 
lations   with    central    government, 
181-182;  organization  of  administra- 
tive county,  183-184;  the  rural  dis- 
trict, 184;  rural  and  urban  parish, 
185;   urban  district,   186;  boroughs 
and  cities,  187-189;  London,  190- 
191 

—  London,  government,  190-191 

—  Lord  High  Chancellor,  63 

—  Lord  Lieutenant,  172 

—  Lords  of  Appeal,  09 


England : — Continued 

—  Magna   Carta,   character   and   im- 
portance, 9 

—  Ministry,  appointment,   57,  66-69; 
relation    with    Privy    Council    and 
Cabinet,  60-61;  Treasury,  62;  Ad- 
miralty Board,  62;  Lord  High  Chan- 
cellorship, 63;  the  secretaries  of  state, 
63-64;  the  administrative  boards,  64; 
responsibility,  70,  128-130;  proceed- 
ings, 71-73 

—  Money  Bills,  the  Lords  and,  106; 
Liberal    proposals    concerning,    108; 
disposition  under  Parliament  Act  of 
1911,  112;  procedure  upon,  135-136 

—  Montfort,  Simon  de,  parliaments  of 
1264  and  1265,  12 

—  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  178 

—  Newcastle  Programme,  152 

—  Parish,  rural  and  urban,  185 

—  Parliament,  origins,   n;  Simon  de 
Montfort's    leadership,    12;    Model 
Parliament,    12-13;   bicameral   prin- 
ciple established,  13;  fiscal  and  legis- 
lative  powers,    14;   development   of 
legislative  process,   15;   composition 
in  1485,  23;  growth  under  Tudors,  24; 
in  Stuart  period,  28-29;  experiments 
during  Commonwealth  and  Protec- 
torate, 29-30;  restoration  in  1660,  31; 
constituent  powers,  45;  relations  with 
crown,   55;   undemocratic   character 
in  early  nineteenth  century,  77-80; 
Reform  Act  of  1832,  81-82;  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Act  of  1867, 
83-84;  Representation  of  the  People 
Act  of  1884,  84-85;  Redistribution  of 
Seats  Act  of  1885,  85;  franchise  and 
franchise   questions    to-day,    86-92; 
electoral  procedure  and  regulations, 
92-96;  composition  of  Lords,  97-101; 
question  of  Lords  reform,  102-109; 
the  Parliament  Act  of  1911, 110-114; 
sessions,  117;  how  opened,  117-118; 
meeting  place  and  sittings,  118-120; 
officers  and  committees  of  Commons, 
121-125;  organization  of  Lords,  125- 
126;  privileges  of  members,  126-127; 
function  of  criticism,  128-130;  judi- 
cial functions,  130-132;  procedure  on 
public  bills,  133-134;  on  money  bills, 


654 


INDEX 


England : — Continued 

135-136;  on  private  bills,  137-138; 
rules  of  Commons,  139-141;  proce- 
dure in  Lords,  141-142 

—  Parliament    Act,    origins,    106-110; 
adoption,  iio-iu;  provisions,  112- 
113;  significance,  113-115 

—  Parliamentarism,  and  parties,  143 

—  Parties,  beginnings,  38-39;  relation 
to    parliamentary  government,  143; 
Tory  ascendancy  from  1783  to  1830, 
145-146;  Liberals  and  reform,  147; 
mid-century   regeneration,    148-150; 
rise  of  Liberal  Unionists,  151;  Con- 
servative ascendancy,  154-155;  Lib- 
eral revival,  156-157;  present  signif- 
icance of  party  names,  162;  current 
issues,  163-165;  labor  and  politics, 
165-166 

—  Plural  Vote,  89-90 

—  Poor  Law,  178 

—  Premier,    selection,    66;    choice    of 
colleagues,  67;  leadership,  72-73 

—  Prince  of  Wales,  49 

—  Private  Legislation,  137-138 

—  Privy  Council,  origins,  17;  under  the 
Tudors,  19;  under  Charles  II.,  37; 
relations  with  ministry  and  cabinet, 
60;  Judicial  Committee  as  a  court,  175 

—  Protectorate,  29-30 

—  Provisional  Orders,  138 

—  Poyning's  Law,  40 

—  Redistribution  of  Seats  Act  of  1885, 
85-86 

—  Referendum,  Unionist  proposal  of, 
109 

—  Reform  Act  of  1832,  81-82 

—  Regency,  50 

—  Representation,  beginnings  of,  u 

—  Representation  of  the  People  Act, 
of  1867,  83-84;  of  1884,  84-85 

—  Rosebery,  Lord,   proposals   for  re- 
form of  Lords,  105,  108 

—  Salisbury,  Marquis  of,  first  ministry, 
157;  second  ministry,  152;  third  and 
fourth  ministries,  153 

—  Scotland,  union  of  1707,  39-40;  al- 
lotment of  parliamentary  seats,  85; 
representative  peers,  98-99 

—  Shire,  5 

—  Shire-moot,  5 


England : — Continued 

—  Society  for  Constitutional  Informa- 
tion, 81 

—  Speaker,    of   House    of    Commons, 
history  and  functions,  121-123;  P°w~ 
ers,  139 

—  Star  Chamber,  Court  of,  20 

—  Stuarts,  absolutism,  26;  overthrow, 
29;  restored,  30;  finally  expelled,  32 

—  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature,  173- 

i7S 

—  Tariff  Reform,  rise  and  effects  of 
issue,  155-156 

—  Taxation,  powers  acquired  by  Par- 
liament, 14,  22 

—  Toleration  Act,  33 

—  Tory   Party,   rise,   39;   ascendancy 
from  1783  to  1830,  145-146 

—  Township,  4 

—  Treasury,  62 

—  Tudors,    popularity,    18;    relations 
with  Parliament,  21 

—  Unionists,  position  in  Lords,  102-106 

—  Westminster  Palace,  116 

—  Whig  Party,  rise,  39 

—  William  I.,  governmental  policies,  6-7 

—  William  III.,  accession,  32 

—  Witenagemot,  4 

—  Woman's  Suffrage,  91-92 

Folketking.    See  Denmark 
France: — 

—  Adjoint,  350 

—  Administration,  under  Old  Regime, 
341-342;   overhauled   in    1780-1791, 
342;  revival  of  centralization,   343; 
under  Second  Empire,  344;  changes 
under  Third  Republic,  345;  the  de- 
partment, 346-347;   the  arrondisse- 
ment,  347;  the  canton,  348;  the  com- 
mune, 348-351 

—  Amendment,   of   constitution,   307, 
327-328 

—  Appeal,  courts  of,  338 

—  Arrondissement,  electoral  unit,  318; 
created,  343;  organization,  347 

—  Assize,  courts  of,  338 

—  Associations,  law  of,  331 

—  Ballottage,  319 

—  Bloc,  rise,  331;   present   condition, 
332 


INDEX 


655 


France : — Continued 

—  Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  and  constitu- 
tion   of    the    Year    VIII.,    293-295; 
organization  of  local  administration, 

343 

—  Bonapartists,  policies  in  1871-1875, 
303-304 

—  Bordeaux,  National  Assembly  meets 
at,  302 

—  Briand,  A.,  programme  of  electoral 
reform,  322;  ministry,  332 

—  Bureaus,  in  Parliament,  325-327 

—  Canton,  created,  342;  made  a  judi- 
cial unit,  343;  present  character,  348 

—  Cassation,  Court  of,  338-339 

—  Catholic  Party,  rise,  338 

—  Chamber  of  Deputies,  composition, 
317;   term  and  qualifications,   318; 
electoral  process,  319;  proposed  elec- 
toral reform,   310-320;   the  Briand 
programme,  322;  reform  bill  of  1912, 
323-324;  sessions,  325;  officers,  325; 
bureaus  and  committees,  326;  proce- 
dure, 326;  powers  and  functions,  327- 
329;  party  strength  in,  332 

—  Church,  legislation  concerning,  331 

—  Clemeneeau,  ministry,  331-332 

—  Code  Civil,  335-336 

—  Code  Napoleon,  335-336 

—  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  336 

—  Code  of  Commerce,  336 

—  Code  of  Criminal  Instruction,  336 

—  Combes,  ministry,  331 

—  Commission  du  Suffrage   Universel, 
321,  323 

—  Committees,  in  Parliament,  325-327 

—  Commune,    suppressed,    303;    con- 
tinuity of,  342;  place  in  Napoleonic 
system,  343;  council  made  elective, 
344;  under  Second  Empire,  344~345J 
legislation  concerning  in  1884,  345; 
present  character,  348;  number  and 
size,  348;  council,  348-349;  mayor 
and  assistants,  349-350;  importance, 

350-351 

—  Concentration,  policy  of,  330 

—  Concordat,  abrogated,  331 

—  Conseil  de  prefecture,  346 

—  Conservative  Party,  after  1848,  329; 
in  control  of  Senate  after  1876,  330; 
changed  character,  333 


France :— Continued 

—  Constitution,  of  1791,  290-291;  of 
the  Year  I.,  291-292;  of  the  Year  III., 
292-293;  of  the  Year  VIII.,  293-295; 
Constitutional  Charter  of  1814,  295- 
297;  of  Second  Republic,  297-298;  of 
Second  Empire,   299-300;  of  Third 
Republic,  304-306;  process  of  amend- 
ment, 305,  327-328 

—  Constitutional  Charter,  295-297 

—  Convention,  292 

—  Corps  Ugislatif,    under  constitution 
of  1791,  291;  under  constitution  of 
the  Year  VIII.,  294 

—  Council,  of  department,  made  elec- 
tive, 344;  present  character,  346-347 

—  Council,  of  arrondissement,  347 

—  Council,  of  commune,  made  elective, 
344;  organization  and  functions,  348- 

349 

• —  Council  of  Elders,  in  constitution  of 
the  Year  III.,  292-293 

—  Council  of  Five  Hundred,  in  consti- 
tution of  the  Year  III.,  292-293 

—  Council  of  State,  composition  and 
functions,  340 

—  Courts,  of  justice  of  the  peace,  337; 
of  first  instance,  337;  of  appeal  and 
of  assize,  338;  of  Cassation,  33^-339; 
appointment  and  tenure  of  judges, 
339;  administrative,  339-340;  Coun- 
cil of  State,  340;  of  Conflicts,  341 

—  Department,  created,  342;  organized 
by  Napoleon,  343;  council  made  elec- 
tive, 344;  under  Second  Empire,  344- 
345;  the  office  of  prefect,  346;  the 
council,  346-347 

—  Elections,  under  constitution  of  the 
Year  VIII.,  293-294;  under  Consti- 
tutional Charter  of  1814,  296;  arron- 
dissement as  unit,  318;  conduct,  319; 
ballottage,  319;  question  of  reform, 
319-322;  the  Briand  programme,  322; 
of  1906,  331;  of  1910,  332;  reform  bill 
of  1912,  323-324 

—  Electoral  Reform.    See  Elections 

—  Empire,    Napoleonic,    295;    Second 
French,  299-300 

—  Extreme  Left,  in  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties, 332 

—  First  Instance,  courts  of,  337 


656 


INDEX 


France  '.—Continued 

—  Franchise,  under  Napoleonic  system, 
294;  under  Constitutional  Charter  of 
1814,  296-297;  present  regulations, 

3i7 

—  Frankfort,  Peace  of,  302 

—  Gtneralite,  342 

—  Great  Western  Line,  purchase  of,  332 

—  Impeachment,  309 

—  Intendant,  342 

—  Interpellation,  314 

—  Jaures,  socialist  leader,  334 

—  Journal  Ojficiel,  326 

—  Judges,  appointment  and  tenure,  339 

—  Judiciary.    See  Court 

—  Juge  de  paix,  337 

—  Law,  codification,  335-336;  charac- 
ter, 336-337;  administrative,  339 

—  Left,  in  Chamber  of  Deputies,  332 

—  Legislation,  President's  part  in,  309- 
310;  processes,  326-327;  powers,  328- 

329  f 

—  Legitimists,  policies  in   1871-1875, 

303-305 

—  MacMahon,  Marshall,  president,  304 

—  Mayor,  functions,  347~35o 

—  Millerand,  fitienne,  socialist  member 
of  ministry,  334 

—  Ministry,  place  in  governmental  sys- 
tem, 311;  composition,  312;  responsi- 
bility, 312-313;  frequency  of  changes, 
313;  interpellation,  314 

—  Multiple  Candidature  Act,  318 

—  Napoleon  III.,  proclaimed  emperor, 
299 

—  National  Assembly,  of   1871-1875, 
302-303;  of  Third  Republic,  election 
of  President,  309,  328;  amendment  of 
constitution,  327-328 

—  Orleanists,    policies   in    1871-1875, 
303-304 

—  Pacification,  policy  of,  330 

—  Parliament,    establishment    of    bi- 
cameral system,  315;  original  form  of 
Senate,    315-316;    composition    and 
election  to-day,  316-317;  composition 
of  Chamber  of  Deputies,  317-318; 
question  of  electoral  reform,  319-324; 
sessions,  325;  officers,  325;  commit- 
tees, 326;  procedure,  326;  powers  and 
functions,  327-329 


France : — Continued 

—  Parliamentarism,  313 

—  Parties,   multiplicity,   312-313;  de- 
velopment after  1848,  329;  situation 
after  1876,  330;  rise  of  Radicals,  330; 
the  bloc,  331;  rise  of  Socialists,  330- 
33i,  333-334;  elections  of  1906,  331; 
elections  of  1910,  332;  changes  since 
1871,  333 

—  Penal  Code,  336 

—  Prefect,  creation  in  1800,  343;  ap- 
pointment and  functions,  346 

—  Premier,  position  and  powers,  312 

—  President,  title  created,  303;  occu- 
pants of  the  office,  308;  election,  308, 
328;  term,  309;  qualifications,  309; 
salary  and  privileges,  309;  powers, 
309-311;    relation    with    ministers, 
311-312 

—  Procedure,  in  Senate  and  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  326-327 

—  Procureur,  327 

—  Progressive  Party,  rise,  331 

—  Proportional  Representation,  move- 
ment for  establishment  of,  320-324 

—  Province,  abolished,  342 

—  Prussia,  war  with,  301 

—  Radical  Party,  rise,  330;  ascendancy, 

33i 

—  Rallies,  330 

—  Republic,   Second,   297-298;  Third 
established,  302-304 

—  Republican  Party,  in  1848,  329;  con- 
trol of  Chamber  of  Deputies  after 
1876,  33° 

—  Right,  in  Chamber  of  Deputies,  332; 
present  character,  333 

—  Rivet  Law,  302 

—  Rouvier,  ministry,  331 

—  Sarrien,  ministry,  331 

—  Scrutin  d'arrondissement,  established 
in  1820,  296;  re-established  in  1889, 
318;  proposed  change  from,  319-320 

—  Scrutin  de  liste,  established  in  1817, 
296;  election  of  senators  by,  316;  ad- 
vantages of,  319-320;  proposals  to  re- 
establish, 320-324 

—  Senate,  original  form,  315-316;  com- 
position and  election  to-day,  316-317; 
sessions,  325;  officers,  325;  bureaus 
and  committees,  325-326;  procedure, 


INDEX 


6S7 


France : — Continued 
326;    powers    and    functions,   327- 
329 

—  Siey£s,  electoral  project,  294 

—  Socialist  Party,  rise,  330;  gains,  331; 
in  Chamber  of  Deputies,  332;  growth 
and  present  character,  333-334 

—  Thiers,  Louis  Adolph,  made  Chief  of 
the    Executive    Power,    302;    made 
President  of  the  French  Republic, 
303;  retirement,  303 

—  Trade-unions,  and  socialism,  333-334 
-  Tribunal  des  Conflits,  341 

—  Veto,  310 

—  Waldeck-Rousseau,  ministry,  331 
Franchise,  in  Great  Britain,  in  early 
nineteenth  century,  79-81 ;  extension, 
81-85;  present  system,  85-88;  ques- 
tions concerning,  88-91;  in  German 
Empire,  224-225;  in  Prussia,  258-260; 
development  in  France,  294-297;  in 
France  to-day,  317;  in  Italy,  376-378; 
in  Switzerland,  426;  in  Austria,  467- 
472;  in  Holland,  526-528;  in  Belgium, 
539-548;  in  Denmark,  563-564;  in 
Norway,  581-582;  in  Sweden,  592- 
597;  in  Spain,  617-618;  in  Portugal, 
637,  641 

Germany  (see  also  Prussia  and  Austria) : 

—  Abgeordnetenhaus,  of  Wiirttemberg, 
278 

—  Abtheilungen,  in  German  Reichstag, 
226;  in  Prussian  Landtag,  264 

—  Agrarian  Party,  234 

—  Alsace-Lorraine,    original    organiza- 
tion, 282;  the  Landesausschuss,  283; 
movement  for  autonomy,  284;  bill  of 
1910,  285;  present  governmental  sys- 
tem, 286-287 

—  Amendment,  of  Imperial  constitu- 
tion, 209 

—  Amtsgericht,  243 

—  Antisemitic  Party,  232 

—  Army,  208 

—  Austria,  war  with  Prussia,  200 

—  Baden,  granted  a  constitution,  197; 
special  privileges,  208;  governmental 
system,  279 

—  Bavaria,    made    a    kingdom,    194; 
granted  a  constitution,  197;  special 


Germany : — Continued 
privileges,  208;  governmental  system, 
275-276 

—  Bebel,  August,  president  of  German 
Social  Democratic  party,  240 

—  Bernstein,   Edward,   and   the   "re- 
visionist" socialists,  239 

—  Bismarck,  Otto  von,  minister-presi- 
dent of  Prussia,  199;  plan  for  reorgan- 
ization   of    German    Confederation, 
200;  establishment  of  North  German 
Bund,  200;  creation  of  the  German 
Empire,  201;  and  socialism,  231;  dis- 
missed, 233;  and  Prussian  local  gov- 
ernment, 266-267 

—  Bloc,  234 

—  Bremen,  governmental  system,  281 

—  Billow,  Count  von,  chancellor,  234; 
and  political  parties,  236;  on  elec- 
toral reform  in  Prussia,  261 

—  Bund.     See  Confederation  of  1815 
and  North  German  Confederation 

—  Bundeskanzleramt,  216 

—  Bundesrath,  composition,  217;  legal 
character,   218;  sessions  and  proce- 
dure, 219;  committees,  220;  powers 
and  functions,  221-222 

—  Caprivi,    General    von,    chancellor, 

233 

—  Carlsbad  Decrees,  248 

—  Centre  Party,  rise,  230;  pivotal  posi- 
tion, 235;  present  position,  236-240 

—  Chancellor,  appointment,  213;  legal 
position,  214;  functions  and  powers, 
215-217 

—  Civil  List,  of  king  of  Prussia,  253 

—  Confederation  of   1815,   formation, 
195;  character,  195-197;  terminated, 
200 

—  Committees,    in    German    Bundes- 
rath, 220;  in  Reichstag,  226;  in  Prus- 
sian Landtag,  364 

—  Conservative  Party,  rise,  229;  vary- 
ing fortunes,  233-234;  present  posi- 
tion, 236-240 

—  Constitution,    of    Confederation   of 
1815,    194-196;    grants    in    various 
states,  197;  grant  in  Prussia,  199;  of 
the    Empire,    202-204;    process    of 
amendment,  209;  of  Prussia,  250-252 

—  Courts,  regulated  by  Law  of  Judicial 


658 


INDEX 


Germany : — Continued 
Organization,  243;  inferior  tribunals, 
243;  Reichsgericht,  244 

—  Crown.    See  Emperor 

—  Elections,  of  members  of  Reichstag, 
224-225 

—  Emperor,  title,  210;  legal  position 
and  privileges,  211;  powers,  211-213; 
relations  with  Chancellor,  214 

—  Empire,  established,  201;  constitu- 
tion, 202-203;  nature,  203-207 

—  Erfurt  Programme,  239 

—  Frankfort,  seat  of  Diet,  195;  parlia- 
ment of  1848, 198;  the  Fiirstentag,  199 

—  Gneist,  Rudolph  von,  writings  on 
government,  266 

—  Gotha,  congress  at,  231 

—  Guelf  Party,  232 

—  Hamburg,     governmental     system, 
280-281 

—  Hanoverian  Party,  232 

—  Hardenberg,  Count  von,  establishes 
a  ministry  of  state,  255 

—  Holy  Roman  Empire,  terminated, 

iQ3 

—  Kulttirkampf,  230 

—  Landgericht,  243 

—  Landtag,  of  Bavaria,  275-276 

—  Law,  character,  241-242 

—  Legislation,   powers,    221,   227-228; 
methods,  219-220,  226-227 

—  Liibeck,  governmental  system,  281 

—  Metternich,  Count,  at  Congress  of 
Vienna,  195 

—  Ministry,  organization,  213-215 

—  Napoleon  I.,  changes  wrought  in  Ger- 
many, 193-194 

—  National  Liberal  Party,  rise,  229; 
preponderance,  230;  break-up,  233 

—  North  German  Confederation,  for- 
mation, 200;  converted  into  Empire, 
201 

—  Oberlandesgericht,  243 

—  Parliamentarism,  absence  in  German 
Empire,  213;  absence  in  Prussia,  254 

—  Parties,  rise,  229;  older  alignments, 
229~23o;more  recent  alignments,  230- 
232;  minor  parties,  232-233;  rise  of 
the  bloc,  234;  recent  developments, 
236-240 

—  Polish  Party,  232 


Germany :— Continued 

—  Privileges,  of  members  of  Reichstag, 
225 

—  Proportional     Representation,      in 
Wiirttemberg,  278 

—  Prussia,  in  Confederation  of  1815, 
194-195;  voting  power  in  the  Diet, 
195-196;  Bismarck's  ministry,   199; 
war  with  Austria,  200;  leadership  of 
North  German  Bund,  200;  creation 
of  German  Empire,  201;  pre-emin- 
ence and  special  privileges,  207-217; 
position  in  Bundesrath,  218-219;  re- 
generation in  Napoleonic  period,  246— 
248;   repression   of  liberalism,    248; 
diet  of  1847,  249;  revolution  of  1848, 
249-250;  formation  of  constitution, 
250 

—  Reichsgericht,  244 

—  Reichsgesetzblatty  215 

—  Reichsland.    See  Alsace-Lorraine. 

—  Reichstag,    composition,    223;    elec- 
toral system,  224;  franchise,  225;  priv- 
ileges of  members,  225;  sessions  and 
officers,  226;  committees,  226;  con- 
duct of  business,  227;  powers  and 
franchise,  227-228 

—  Revolution  of   1848,   in   Germany, 
198-199;  in  Prussia,  249-250 

—  Saxony,    made    a    kingdom,    194; 
granted  a  constitution,  197;  govern- 
mental system,  276-278 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  rise,  231; 
growth,  232;  triumph  in  1912,  236- 
238;  present  programme  and  char- 
acter, 239-240;  strength  in  Prussia, 
260-261 

—  Sonderrechte,  208 

—  Standeversammlung,  of  Saxony,  277 

—  Statthalter,  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  286 

—  Versailles,    William    I.    proclaimed 
emperor  at,  193 

—  Vienna,  Congress  of,  arrangements 
in  Germany,  194 

—  Vorporlament,  of  1848,  198 

—  William  I.,  proclaimed  German  Em- 
peror, 193 

—  Wiirttemberg,  made  a  kingdom,  194; 
granted  a  constitution,  197;  special 
privileges,    208;   governmental    sys- 
tem, 278-279 


INDEX 


659 


Germany : — Continued 

—  Zollverein,  rise,  197 
Great  Britain.    See  England 

Hamburg,  governmental  system,  280- 

281 

Herrenhaus.    See  Prussia  and  Austria 
Herzegovina.    See  Austria-Hungary 
Holland:— 

—  Administration,  organization  of  prov- 
ince, 532-533;  organization  of  com- 
mune, 533 

—  Amendment,  process,  523 

—  Assembly,  of  province,  532 

—  Batavian  Republic,  established,  518 

—  Belgium,  revolution  in,  520;  inde- 
pendence of,  521 

—  Commune,  organization,  533 

—  Conservative  Party,  529-530 

—  Constitution,  granted  by  William  L, 
519;  revision,  521-522;  present  char- 
acter, 523;  process  of  amendment,  523 

—  Council,  of  commune,  533 

—  Council  of  State,  524 

—  Courts,  531-532 

—  Crown,  status  and  privileges,  523- 
524;  powers,  525 

—  Elections,    movement    for    reform, 
526;  law  of  1896,  527;  pending  ques- 
tions, 527-528;  of  1903,  529-530;  of 
1909,  530 

—  France,  Holland  annexed  to,  518 

—  Franchise,  movement  for  liberaliz- 
ing, 526;  law  of  1896,  527;  pending 
questions,  527-528 

—  High  Court,  531 

—  Judiciary,    principles,    531;    courts, 
531-532 

—  Liberal  Party,  529-530 

—  Ministry,  composition,  524;  powers, 

525 

—  Napoleon,  relations  with  the  Nether- 
lands, 517-518 

—  Parliament.    See  States-General 

—  Parties,  rise,  529;  present  alignment, 
520;  elections  of  1909,  530 

—  Province,  organization,  532-533 

—  States-General,  composition  of  the 
houses,  526;  electoral  system,  527-528; 
organization   and   powers,    528-529; 
political  complexion,  530 


Holland : — Continued 

—  Socialists,  529-53° 

—  Vienna,  Congress  of,  arrangements 
respecting  the  Netherlands,  518 

—  William  I.,  king  of  the  Netherlands, 
518-519;   grants   constitution,    519- 
520;    resists    Belgian    independence, 
520-521;  abdicates,  521 

—  Woman's  suffrage,  527-528 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  terminated,  193 
House  of  Commons.    See  England 
House  of  Lords.    See  England 
House   of   Representatives.     See   Bel- 
gium 
Hungary: — 

—  Administration,  506-507 

—  Andr£ssy,    introduces   electoral   re- 
form bill,  495 

—  Andrew    II.,    promulgates    Golden 
Bull,  446-447,  489 

—  Arpdds,  dynasty  of,  447 

—  Ausgleich,  established,  458-459;  and 
Hungarian  political  parties,  500 

—  Austria,    establishment    of    control, 
443;  encroachment  by,  449-450;  sup- 
presses revolution  of  1848,  455-456; 
constitutional  experiments,  457-468; 
Ausgleich  established,  458-459 

—  Banffy,  ministry,  502 

—  Banus,  of  Croatia-Slavonia,  508 

—  Chamber  of  Deputies,  composition, 
493;  electoral  system,  493-494;  move- 
ment for  electoral  reform,  495-496; 
electoral  procedure,  497-498;  organ- 
ization, 498;  powers,  499-500 

—  Constitution,  foundations,  446-447; 
development,  447-448;  March  Laws, 
453-454,  489;  character,  490 

—  County,  origins,  506;  organization, 

507 

—  Courts,  505-506 

—  Croatia,  government,  507-508 

—  Crown.     See  King 

—  Deak,    Francis,    builds   up   Liberal 
party,  452;  voices  demands  of  Hun- 
gary, 457;  retirement,  501 

—  Elections,    present    franchise,   493- 
494;  movement  for  reform,  495;  re- 
form bill  of  1908;  495-497;  procedure, 
497-498;  of  1905,  503 

—  Franchise,  present  system,  493-494; 


66o 


INDEX 


Hungary : — Continued 
electoral   reform  bill   of   1908,  495- 

497 

—  Golden  Bull,  promulgated,  446-447, 
489 

—  Hedervdry,  ministry,  504-505 

—  Independence,  proclaimed  in  1849, 

455  m 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  King,  status,  491 

—  Law,  505 

—  Liberal  Party,  origins,  452,  501-502; 
demands  in  1860-1861,  457;  ascend- 
ancy, 501,  502 

—  Magyars,  settlement  in  Europe,  445; 
policies  in   1848,  454;  number  and 
domination  of,  494 

—  March  Laws,  promulgated,  453 

—  Metternich,  repressive  policy,  452 

—  Ministry,   composition  and   status, 
491-492 

—  Mohdcs,  battle  of,  448 

—  Parliament,    composition,   492-493; 
electoral  system,  493-497;  organiza- 
tion and  procedure,  497-498;  powers 
499-500;  obstructionism  in,  502-505 

—  Parliamentarism,  498 

—  Parties,  and  question  of  Ausgleieh, 
500;  rise  of  Liberals,  500-501;  era  of 
parliamentary   obstructionism,   502- 
505 

—  Pragmatic   Sanction,    promulgated, 
449 

—  Revolution,  of  1848,  453~455 

—  Settlement,  445 

—  Slavonia,  government,  507-508 

—  Stephen    I.,    receives    crown    from 
Pope,  446 

—  Table    of    Magnates,    composition, 
492-493;  privileges,  493;  organization 
and  procedure,  498;  powers,  499-500 

—  Tisza,  Istvan,  ministry,  503 

—  Tisza,  Kalman,  ministry,  501-502 

—  Turks,  invasions  of,  448 

—  Wekerle,  ministry,  504 

Initiative,  in  Switzerland,  421,  432-434 

Interpellation,    in    Prussian    Landtag, 

265;  in  French  Chamber  of  Deputies, 

314;  in  Italian  Chamber  of  Deputies, 

380 


Ireland,  union  of  1801,  40-41;  allot- 
ment of  parliamentary  seats,  85; 
over-representation,  89;  representa- 
tive peers,  98-99;  question  of  Home 
Rule,  150-152 

Italy:— 

—  Administration,  patterned  on  French, 
363;    nature    and    organization    of 
province,  384;  nature  and  organiza- 
tion of  commune,  385 

—  Austria,  influence  in  Italy  in  eight- 
eenth  century,   353;   position   after 
jSiS,  358;  helps  suppress  revolution 
of    1848,    361;    Piedmontese-French 
alliance  against,  362;  loss  of  Venetia, 
364 

—  Ballottaggio,  378 

—  Bissolati,  political  influence,  397 

—  Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  and  the  Cis- 
alpine   Republic,    354;    overthrows 
Genoese    oligarchy,    354;    wins    at 
Marengo,    355;    supervises    revision 
of    Italian    constitutions,    355-356; 
crowned  king  of  Italy,  356;  annexes 
Rome  to  France,  357;  prophecy  of 
Italian  unification,  359 

—  Campo  Formio,  treaty  of,  354 

—  Cassation,  courts  of,  382 

—  Catholics,  political  activities,  400- 
402 

—  Cavour,  Count,  policies,  362 

—  Chamber  of  Deputies,  composition, 
375;  franchise  law  of  1882,  376;  fran- 
chise to-day,  376-377;  electoral  pro- 
cedure, 378;  qualifications  and  priv- 
ileges of  members,  378-379;  organ- 
ization, 379-380;  procedure,  380-381 

—  Charles  Albert  L,  becomes  king  of 
Piedmont,  360;  grants  constitution  hi 
1848,  360-361 ;  abdicates,  361 

—  Circondaro,  383 

—  Cisalpine  Republic,  353-354 

—  Code  Napoleon,  established  in  Italy, 

357 

—  Committees,  of  Parliament,  380 

—  Commune,  nature  and  organization, 

385 

—  Conservative    Party,    origins,    391; 
lack  of  normal  development,  398 

—  Constitution,  of  Cispadane  Republic, 
354;  of  Transpadane  Republic,  354; 


INDEX 


66 1 


Italy:— Continued 

of  Ligurian  Republic,  355;  of  Roman 
Republic,  355;  of  Parthenopaean 
Republic,  355;  revisions  in  1802- 
I8o3,  355-356;  of  Napoleonic  king- 
dom of  Naples,  357;  proclaimed  in 
Naples  in  1820,  359;  proclaimed  in 
Naples  in  1848,  360-361;  granted  in 
Piedmont  in  1848,  360-361;  character 
of  Statute,  365-367 

—  Council,  of  province,  384;  of  com- 
mune, 385 

—  Courts,  patterned  upon  the  French, 
381;     ordinary    tribunals,    381-382; 
courts  of  cassation,  382;  administra- 
tive courts,  382-383 

—  Crispi,  ministries,  393,  394-395 

—  Crown,  status,  368;  civil  list,  368; 
powers  and  functions,  368-369;  rela- 
tion with  ministers,  370 

—  Depretis,  ministries,  392-393 

—  Elections,  development  of  laws  re- 
garding,   376;    franchise,    376-378; 
procedure,  378;  Catholic  participa- 
tion in,  400-402;  of  1909,  402-403 

—  Extreme  Left,  influence,  395;  groups 
of,  398 

—  France,  relations  with  Italy  during 
Napoleonic   period,    354~357;    allied 
with  Piedmont,  362;  receives  Savoy 
and  Nice,  363;  withdrawal  of  troops 
from  Rome,  364 

—  Franchise,  prior  to  1882,  375;  law  of 
1882,  376;  present  regulations,  376- 
377;  electoral  reform,  377 

—  Fortis,  ministry,  396 

—  Garibaldi,  conquest  of  Sicily,  363 

—  Genoa,  government  remodelled,  354 

—  Giolitti,  ministries,  394,  396-398 

—  Giunta,  of  province,  384;  of  com- 
mune, 385 

—  Judiciary.     See  Courts 

—  Italian  Republic,  356 

—  Interpellation,  380 

—  Left,  origins,  391 ;  dominance,  392- 
394;  prospects  of  harmony,  398 

—  Liberal  Party,  in  control,  395 

• —  Ligurian  Republic,  established,  354; 

annexed  to  France,  356 
• —  Lombardy,  Austria's  position  in,  353, 

358;  annexed  to  Piedmont,  363 


Italy :— Continued 

—  LuneVille,  treaty  of,  355 

—  Luzzatti,  ministry,  396 

—  Mandamento,  381 

—  Milan,    Transpadane    Republic   in- 
augurated at,  354;  Napoleon  crowned 
at,  356 

—  Ministry,  composition,  369;  organ- 
ization and  functions,  370-371;  or- 
dinances, 371-372 

—  Naples,    invaded   by   French,   355; 
Murat  king  of,  357;  revolution  of 
1820,  359;  revolution  of  1848,  360- 
361 ;  annexed  to  kingdom  of  Italy,  363 

—  Napoleon.    See  Bonaparte 

—  Nice,  ceded  to  France,  363 

—  Non   Expedit,   purpose   and   effect, 
400-401 ;  partial  relaxation,  401-402 

—  Novara,  battle  of,  361 

—  Ordinances,  371 

—  Papacy,  and  revolution  of  1848,  360- 
361;  losses  of  territory  to  Piedmont, 
362-363;  and  of  temporal  dominion, 
387;     Law    of     Papal     Guarantees 
promulgated,  388;  prerogatives,  388- 
389;  relations  with  state,  389;  opposi- 
tion to  existing  system,  390;  the  Non 
Expedit,  400-402 

—  Papal  Guarantees,  Law  of,  promul- 
gated, 388;  contents  and  character, 
388-389;  papal  attitude  toward,  390 

—  Parliament,   of  united  kingdom  of 
Italy,    364;    composition,    372-373; 
legislative  weakness  of  Senate,  373; 
proposed  reform  of  Senate,  373-374; 
composition  of  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
375;    franchise,    376-377;    electoral 
procedure,    378;    qualifications    and 
privileges  of  members,  378-379;  or- 
ganization, 379-380;  procedure,  380- 
38i 

—  Parties,  rise  of,  391 ;  rule  of  Radicals, 
392-394;  era  of  composite  ministries, 
395-398;  lack  of  real  conservatives, 
398-399;   groups   of   Extreme   Left, 
398;  rise  of  socialism,  399-400;  ef~ 
fects  of  the  Non  Expedit,  401-402  j 
elections  of  1909,  402-403 

—  Parthenopaean  Republic,  355 

—  Piedmont,  incorporated  with  France, 
355;  recovery  in  1815,  358;  revolu- 


662 


INDEX 


Italy:— Continued 

tion  of  1821,  360;  revolution  of  1848, 
360;  obtains  constitution,  361;  ac- 
cession of  Victor  Emmanuel  IL,  361; 
ascendancy  of,  362;  annexations  of 
1859-1860,  362 

—  Pius  IX.,  reforms,  360;  and  revolu- 
tion of  1848,  360-361;  loss  of  tem- 
poral dominion,  387;  rejects  Law  of 
Guarantees,  390 

—  Plombieres,  agreement  of,  362 

—  Prefect,  384 

—  Premier,  appointment,  369-370 

—  Pressburg,  treaty  of,  356 

—  Province,  nature  and  organization, 

384 

—  Radical  Party,  origins,  391;  domi- 
nance, 392-394 

—  Republican  Party,  weakness,  399 

—  Revolution,   of   1820-1821,   359;  of 
1848,  360 

—  Right,  origins,  391 ;  loss  of  power, 
392;  coalition  with  Left,  393 

—  Risorgimento,  353 

—  Roman  Republic,  355 

—  Rome,  republic  established  in  1798, 
355;  annexed  to  France,  357;  annexed 
to  kingdom  of  Italy,  364;  becomes 
capital  of  kingdom,  364 

—  Rudini,  ministries,  394-395 

—  Sardinia,   kingdom   of.     See   Pied- 
mont 

—  Savoy,  ceded  to  France,  363 

—  Scrutinio  di  lista,  established  in  1882, 
376 

—  Senate,  composition,  372-373;  legis- 
lative  weakness,   373;   proposed  re- 
form, 373-374;  privileges  and  powers, 
375;    organization,    379;    procedure, 
380-381 

—  Sindaco,  of  commune,  385 

—  Socialist  Party,  rise  and  character, 
399-400 

—  Sonnino,  ministries,  396-397 

—  Statuto,  granted,  360;  character,  365, 
366-367;  amendment,  365-366 

—  Transpadane  Republic,  354 

—  Treaties,  369 

—  Turin,  kingdom  of  Italy  proclaimed 
at,  364 

—  Uffici,  380 


Italy : — Continued 

—  Venice,  ceded  to  Austria,  354;  an- 
nexed to  kingdom  of  Italy,  364 

—  Vienna,  Congress  of,  settlement  of 
Italian  affairs,  358 

—  Victor  Emmanuel  II.,  accession  as 
king  of  Piedmont,  361;  building  of 
Italian  unity,  362-364 

—  Zanardelli,  ministry,  396 

Landsthing.    See  Denmark 

Landtag.    See  Prussia 

Law,  of  England,  167-169;  of  Ger- 
many, 241-242;  of  France,  335~339; 
of  Switzerland,  439;  of  Hungary,  505 

London,  government,  190-191 

Magna  Carta,  importance  and  charac- 
ter, 9 

Ministry,  organization  and  status  in 
Great  Britain,  57-70;  proceedings, 
71-73;  in  German  Empire,  213-215; 
in  Prussia,  254-256;  in  France,  311- 
314;  in  Italy,  369-372;  in  Austria, 
464-465;  in  Hungary,  491-492;  in 
Holland,  524-525;  in  Belgium,  536- 
537;  in  Denmark,  560-568;  in  Nor- 
way, 580-581;  in  Sweden,  590-591; 
in  Spain,  615-616;  in  Portugal,  635- 
636;  644 

Netherlands.    See  Holland 

Non  Expedit,  nature  and  effects,  400- 

402 
Norway: — 

—  Administration,  organization,  588 

—  Amtsthing,  588 

—  Bernadotte,  and  union  with  Sweden, 

554,  573-574 

—  Commune,  organization,  588 

—  Conservative  Party,  585-586 

—  Constitution,  of  Eidsvold,  574;  pres- 
ent form,  578;  amendment,  579 

—  Consular  Service,  question  of,  576- 

577 

—  County,  organization,  588 

—  Courts,  organization,  587-588 

—  Crown,  restoration  of  independence, 
578;  status,  580;  powers,  580-581; 
question  of  veto,  584-585 


INDEX 


663 


Norway: — Continued 

—  Denmark,  united  with,  553,  572-573; 
separated  from,  554 

—  Eidsvold,  constitution  of,  574 

—  Elections,   method,    581;   franchise, 
581-582;  of  1909  and  1912,  587 

—  Formaend,  588 

—  Franchise,    development,    581-582; 
present  system,  582 

—  Haakon  VII.,  crowned  king,  578 

—  Hoiesteret,  587 

—  Independence,     movement     for     in 
1813-1814,  574;  achieved,  577~578 

—  Judiciary.     See  Courts 

—  Kalmar,  union  of,  553 

—  Karlstad,  convention  of,  578 

-  Kiel,  treaty  of,  554,  573,  575 

—  Liberal  Party,  growth,  585-586 

—  Lagthing.     See  Storthing 

—  Michelsen,  ministry,  577 

—  Ministry,    composition,    580;    func- 
tions, 580-581 

—  Oddsthing.     See  Storthing 

—  Parliament.     See  Storthing 

—  Parliamentarism,  581 

-  Parties,  history  to   1905,   585-586; 
status  since  1905,  586-587 

—  Riksakt,  of  1815,  574-575 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  587 

—  Steen,  carries  electoral  reform,  581 

—  Storthing,  composition,  581;  electoral 
system,  581-582;  sessions  and  organ- 
ization, 582;  powers  and  procedure, 

583-584 

—  Sverdrup,    organizes    first    Liberal 
ministry,  585 

—  Sweden,  union  with  established,  574; 
nature   of   union,    574-575;   friction 
with,  575-576;  question  of  consular 
service,    576-577;    separation    from, 
577-578 

—  Union.    See  Sweden 

—  Veto,  power  of,  584-585 

—  Woman's  Suffrage,  status,  582 
Papacy.     See  Italy 

Parliament.  See  England,  France, 
Italy,  Austria,  etc. 

Parliamentarism,  in  Great  Britain,  143; 
in  German  Empire,  213;  in  Prussia, 
254;  in  Austria,  464-465,  480-481;  in 
Hungary,  498;  in  Belgium,  536-537; 


in  Denmark,  560-562;  in  Norway, 
581;  in  Sweden,  591 

Parties,  rise  in  England,  38-39;  history 
in  England,  143-166;  in  Germany, 
229-240;  in  France,  329-333;  in 
Italy,  391-402;  in  Switzerland,  434- 
437;  in  Austria,  475-483;  in  Hungary, 
500-505;  in  Holland,  529-530;  in 
Denmark,  565-568;  in  Norway,  585- 
587;  in  Sweden,  592-600;  in  Spain, 
620-625;  in  Portugal,  631-633,  639- 
642 

Plural  vote,  in  England,  88-90;  in 
Austria,  468;  in  Belgium,  550-551 

Portugal:— 

—  Administration,  organization  under 
monarchy,  638-639;  under  republic, 
646 

—  Arriaga,  Manoel,  elected  president, 
642 

—  Bonaparte,    Napoleon,    subjugation 
by,  629 

—  Braga,  Theophile,  leader  of  provi- 
sional government,  641 

—  Braganza,  house  of,  proscribed,  641- 
642 

—  Brazil,  relation  with,  629 

—  Chagas,  Joao,  ministry,  642 

—  Charter,    of    1826,    630;     revised, 

631 

—  Chartist  Party,  630-631 

—  Commune,  organization,  638-639 

—  Congress,  composition  and  powers, 
645-646 

—  Constitution,  of  1826,  630;  revision 
of  1852,  631;  character  under  mon- 
archy, 634-635;  of  republic  framed, 
642-643;   nature,   643;   amendment, 

643 

—  Cortes,  extinct  at  opening  of  nine- 
teenth century,  629;  revival,  630-631 ; 
party  strength  under  monarchy,  633- 
634;  renewed  in  1908,  634;  composi- 
tion under  monarchy,  636-638 

—  Council  of  Municipalities,  composi- 
tion and  powers,  645-646 

—  Courts,  under  monarchy,  638;  under 
republic,  646 

—  Crown,  status  prior  to  1910,  635-636 

—  Dictadura,  of  France,  633-634 

—  District,  organization,  638-639 


664 


INDEX 


Portugal : — Continued 

—  Elections,  of  1906,  633;  system  prior 
to  1910,  637;  of  1910,  640;  provision 
for  in  decree  of  1911,  641-642 

—  Franchise,    under    monarchy,    637; 
under  decree  of  1911,  642 

—  Franco,  dictatorship,  633-634 

—  House  of  Deputies,  under  monarchy, 
636-637 

—  House  of  Peers,  under  monarchy, 
636-637 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  Liberal    Concentration,    of     1906, 

633 

—  Manoel  II.,  overthrow,  641 

—  Miguel,  assumption  of  crown,  630 

—  Ministry,  status  prior  to  1910,  635- 
636;  under  the  republic,  644 

—  National  Council,  composition  and 
powers,  645-646 

—  Parties,  rivalries,  631-632;  dictator- 
ship of  Franco,  633-634;  elections  of 
1906,  633;  and  revolution  of  1910, 
639-642 

—  Pedro  IV.,  contest  with  Miguelists, 
630 

—  Pombal,  reforms,  629 

—  President,  status  and  powers,  644 

—  Progressive  Party,  631-634 

—  Regenerador  Party,  631-634 

—  Revolution,  of   1910,   origins,  639; 
character  and  results,  640-641 

—  Rotatiws,  632-633 

—  Septembrist  Party,  631 

—  Thomar,  Count  of,  ministry,  631 
President,     of    France,     303-312;     of 

Switzerland,  422-424;  of  Portugal, 
644 

Proportional  Representation,  in  Wtir- 
temberg,  278;  movement  for  in 
France,  320-324;  in  Switzerland,  419, 
433;  in  Belgium,  543~54S;  in  Den- 
mark, 563 

Province,  in  Prussia,  268-270;  in  Italy, 
384;  in  Austria,  485-487;  in  Holland, 
532-533;  in  Belgium,  550-551;  in 
Spain,  627 

Prussia  (see  also  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria) :— 

—  Abgeordnetenhaus,  composition,  258; 
electoral  system    258-260;  question 


Prussia  '.—Continued 
of  electoral  reform,  260-263;  session 
and  powers,  263-264 

—  AUheilungen,  in  Landtag,  264 

—  Administration,  reform  measures  of 
Stein  and  Hardenberg,  265;  reforms 
of  Bismarck,  266;  general  principles, 
267;  the  province  and  its  government, 
268-270;    the    government    district, 
270-271;    the    circle,    271-272;    the 
commune,  272-273 

—  Amendment,  of  constitution,  252 

—  Amtsgerichte,  243 

—  Austria,  war  with,  200 

—  Bezirksausschuss,  270 

—  Charlottenburg,  constitution  promul- 
gated at,  251 

—  Circle.     See  Kreis 

—  Civil  List,  253 

—  Committees,  in  Landtag,  264 

—  Commune,       organization,       272- 

273 

— Constitution,  obstacles  to  establish- 
ment, 248;  promulgated,  250;  nature, 
251;  amendment,  252 

—  Crown,  status  and  power,  252 

—  Diet,  of  1847,  249 

—  Elections,  present  system,  258-260; 
question  of  reform,  260-263 

—  Franchise,  258-260 

—  Frederick  William  III.,  and  consti- 
tutionalism, 248-250 

—  Hardenberg,  reform  measures,  247- 
265 

—  Herrenhaus,  original   provisions    of 
constitution  concerning,  257;  law  of 
1853,  257;  composition  to-day,  257- 
258 

—  Interpellation,  in  Landtag,  265 

—  Judiciary,  243-244 

—  Kreis,  organization,  271 

—  Kreisausschuss,  271 

—  Kreistag,  271 

—  Landeshauptmann,  270 

—  Landgerichte,  243 

—  Landrath,  271 

—  Landtag,  composition,  257-258;  elec- 
toral system,  258-260;  electoral  re- 
form, 260-263;  sessions,  263;  powers, 
264 

—  Ministry,  composition,  254;  organ- 


INDEX 


665 


Prussia : — Continued 
ization  and  workings,  255-256;  sub- 
sidiary executive  bodies,  256 

—  Napoleon,  and  Prussia,  246-247 

—  Oberlandesgerichie,  243 

—  OberprOsident,  269 

—  Oberrechnungskammer,  256 

—  Regierungsbezirk,  organization,  270- 
271 

—  Regierungsprdsident,  270 

—  Revolution,  of  1848,  249-250 

—  Schulze,  272 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  260-261 

—  Stadtrath,  273 

—  Stein,   reform   measures,    247,    265; 
and  Prussian  local  government,  265 

—  Parliamentarism,  absence  of,  254 

—  Province,  origins  and  number,  268- 
269;  organs  of  central  administration, 
269;  organs  of  self-government,  269- 
270 

—  Provinziallandtag,  270 

—  Provinzialrath,  269 

—  Volkswirthschaftsrath,  256 

Referendum,  Unionist  proposal  in 
Great  Britain,  109;  in  Swiss  cantons, 
419-420;  in  Swiss  federal  govern- 
ment, 430-432 

Reichsrath.    See  Austria 

Republicanism,  in  France,  297-298, 
302-304,  329-330;  in  Italy,  399 

Rigsdag.    See  Denmark 

Riksdag.    See  Sweden 

Saxony,  made  a  kingdom,  194;  granted 
a  constitution,  197;  governmental 
system,  276-278 

Scotland,  union  of  1707,  30-40;  allot- 
ment of  parliamentary  seats,  85; 
representative  peers,  98-99 

Senate.  See  France,  Italy,  Belgium, 
Spain 

Social  Democrats,  in  German  Empire, 
231-240;  in  Prussia,  260-261;  in 
France,  33°-334;  in  Italy,  399~4oo; 
in  Switzerland,  434-436;  in  Austria, 
469-470,  483;  in  Holland,  529-530; 
in  Belgium,  540-548;  in  Norway, 
587;  in  Sweden,  593-595,  600;  in 
Spain,  625 


Spain: — 

—  Administration,  organization,   627- 
628;  principles,  628 

—  Alfonso  XII.,  accession,  610 

—  Amendment,  of  constitution,  611 

—  Ayuntamiento,  of  commune,  628 

—  Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  conquest  by, 
603-604 

—  Cadiz,  Cortes  convoked  at,  604 

—  Canovas  del  Castillo,  ministries,  621- 
622 

—  Carlists,  606,  609,  620 

—  Commune,  organization,  627 

—  Congress  of  Deputies,  composition 
and  election,  617-618;  sessions  and 
organization,  618-619;  powers,  619- 
620 

—  Conservative  Party,  character,  621, 
625;  governments  of,  621-623 

—  Constitution,  of  1812  drawn  up,  604; 
rescinded  by  Frederick  VII.,  605;  of 
1834,  607;  of  1837,  607;  of  1845,  607- 
608;  of  1869,  608;  of  1876,  611;  char- 
acter and  contents  to-day,  611-612 

—  Cortes,  convened  in  1810, 604;  drafts 
constitution  of  1812,  604;  under  con- 
stitution of  1812,  604;  under  consti- 
tution of  1834,  607;  under  constitu- 
tion of  1837,  607;  under  constitution 
of  1845,  608;  under  constitution  of 
1869,  608-609;  establishes  republic, 
609;   re-establishes   monarchy,   610; 
adopts   constitution   of    1876,    611; 
composition  to-day,  616-618;  sessions 
and  organization,  618-619;  powers, 
619-620;  strength  of  parties,  624-625 

—  Council,  of  province,  627;  of  com- 
mune, 628 

—  Courts,  organization,  626-627 

—  Crown,  rules  of  succession,  613;  re- 
gencies, 613-614;  powers,  614-615 

—  Elections,     of    senators,     617;     of 
deputies,  618;  of  1907  and  1910, 624- 
625 

—  Espartero,  regent,  607 

—  Estatuto  Real,  of  1834,  607 

—  Isabella  II.,  accession,  606;  declared 
of  age,  608;  abdicates,  608 

—  Ferdinand  VII.,  reign,  605-607 

—  France,  intervention,  605 

—  Franchise,  present  system,  618 


666 


INDEX 


Spain : — Continued 

—  Governor,  of  province,  627 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  King.    See  Crown 

—  Law,  626 

—  Liberal  Party,  character,  621,  625; 
governments  of,  621-623 

—  Maria  Christina,  regency,  606-607; 
abdicates,  607 

—  Maura,  ministries,  623-624 

—  Ministry,    composition,    615;    func- 
tions, 615-616 

—  Parliament.    See  Cortes 

—  Parties,  beginnings,  620;  character 
of  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  621- 
622;  since  1903,  623-624;  elections  of 
1910,  624-625;  republicans  and  so- 
cialists, 625 

—  Pragmatic  Sanction,  of  1830,  606 

—  Province,  organization,  627 

—  Regency,  613-614 

—  Republic,  established,  609;  abolished, 
610 

—  Republican  Party,  rise,  620;  present 
character,  625 

—  Revolution,  of  1820,  605 

—  Sagasta,  ministries,  621-623 

—  Salic  Law,  rescinded,  606 

—  Scrutin  de  liste,  in  election  of  dep- 
uties, 618 

—  Senate,  composition,  616;  appoint- 
ment and  election,  616-617;  sessions 
and  organization,  618-619 

—  Serrano,  regent,  609 

—  Socialist  Party,  character  of,  625 

—  Succession,  rules  of,  613 

—  Supreme  Court,  626-627 
States-General.    See  Holland 
Storthing.    See  Norway 
Sweden: — 

—  Administration,  organization,  601 

—  Agricultural     Party.       See     Landt- 
mannapartiet 

—  Amendment,  process,  589 

—  Bernadotte,  and  union  with  Norway, 

554,  573-574 

—  Conservative    Party,    and   electoral 
reform,     592-596;    long    tenure    of 
power,  599-600 

—  Consular  Service,  question  of,  576- 
577 


Sweden : — Continued 

—  Constitution,   character,   572,   589; 
amendment,  589 

—  Constitutional  Committee,  598 

—  County,  organization,  601 

—  Courts,  organization,  600-601 

—  Crown,  early  status,  570-571;  pres- 
ent basis,  590;  relations  with  minis- 
try, 590-591 

—  Elections,     present     system,     592; 
movement  for  reform,   592-596;  of 
1908  and  1911,  600 

—  Franchise,  present  regulations,  592; 
rise  of  movement  for  reform,  592-593; 
Conservative  proposal  of  1904,  593- 
594;  Staaff  project  of  1906,  594~595; 
law  of  1907-1909,  595-596;  question 
of  women's  suffrage,  596;  bill  of  1912, 
596-597 

—  Gustavus     III.,     rehabilitation     of 
monarchy,  571 

—  Gustavus  IV.,  abdicates,  572 

—  Hogsta  Domstolen,  organization  and 
functions,  600-601 

—  Independence,  established,  570 

—  Judiciary.     See  Courts 

—  Karlstad,  convention  of,  578 

—  Kiel,  treaty  of,  554,  573,  575 

—  Landsthing,  of  county,  601 

—  Landtmannapartiet,  growth,  599 

—  Liberal  Party,  and  electoral  reform, 
592-596;  gains,  600 

—  Lindman,   project  for  electoral  re- 
form, 595 

—  Ministry,  composition,  590;  powers, 

590-591 

—  Norway,  union  with,  573-574;  na- 
ture of  union,  574-575;  friction  with, 
575-576;  question  of  consular  service, 
576-577;  separation  of,  577~578 

—  Parliament.    See  Riksdag 

—  Parliamentarism,  591 

—  Parties,  and  electoral  reform,  592- 
596;   military   and   tariff   questions, 
598-599;   history    since    1891,   599- 
600 

—  Regerings-formen,  of  1809,  promul- 
gated, 572 

—  Riksakt,  of  1815,  574-575 

—  Riksdag,    original    character,     591; 
reorganization  in  1866,  591 ;  composi- 


INDEX 


667 


Sweden : — Continued 

tion  of  chambers,  591-595;  electoral 
system,  582;  movement  for  electoral 
reform,  592-596;  organization  and 
procedure,  597;  powers,  597-598 

—  Social  Democratic  Party,  and  elec- 
toral reform,  593-595;  gains,  600 

—  Staaff,  project  for  electoral  reform, 

594 

—  Statsrad.    See  Ministry 

—  Supreme  Court.     See  Hogsta  Dom- 
stolen 

—  Union.    See  Norway 

—  Women's  Suffrage,  movement  for, 

596-597 
Switzerland: — 

—  Act  of  Mediation,  407 

—  Bezirksammann,  422 

—  Bezirksrath,  422 

—  Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  promulgates 
Act  of  Mediation,  407 

—  Bundesgericht,  nature  and  functions, 
437-438 

—  Bundesrath.    See  Federal  Council 

—  Canton,     constitutions     liberalized, 
409;  sovereignty,  412;  federal  control, 
412-413;    powers    exercised    concur- 
rently with  Confederation,  414-415; 
variation  of  constitutions,  416;  the 
Landesgemeinde,  417-418;  the  Greater 
Council,  418-419;  use  of  referendum, 
419-420;  use  of  initiative,  421;  the 
executive  Council  of  State,  421;  local 
administration,   422;    the   judiciary, 
422 

—  Centralism,  triumph  in  1848,  410;  as 
a  political  issue,  434 

—  Clerical  Party,  character,  434-435 

—  Commune,  422 

—  Confederation,    origins,    405;    com- 
position in  later  eighteenth  century, 
406;  erected  into  Helvetic  Republic, 
406;   remodelled   in    1803,   407;   re- 
organized in  1815,  408;  constitution 
of  1848  and  1874,  410;  nature,  411- 
412;    control    of    cantons    by,    412.; 
powers  vested  exclusively  in,  413- 
414;  powers  denied,  414-415;  general 
aspects,  415 

—  Constitution,  of  Helvetic  Republic, 
406-407;  remodelled  in  1803,  407;  of 


Switzerland  '.—Continued 

1815,  408;  of  cantons  liberalized,  409; 
of  1848,  410;  revision  of  1874,  410; 
nature  of  government  established  by, 
411-416;  amendment,  431-432 

—  Council  of  State,  executive  agency  in 
cantons,  421 

—  Council  of  the  States,  composition, 
427;  compared  with  Senate  of  United 
States,    427-428;    powers,    428-429; 
procedure,  429-430 

—  Courts,  of  the  cantons,  422;  absence 
of    administrative    tribunals,    425- 
426;     the    Bundesgericht,     437~438; 
Civil  Code,  439 

—  Diet,  of  Confederation  in  1803-1815, 
407;  after  1815,  408 

—  Elections,  of  Federal  Council,  423; 
of  National  Council,  426;  of  Council 
of  the  States,  428;  party  conditions, 

435-437 

—  Federal    Assembly,    relations    with 
Federal  Council,  424-425;  composi- 
tion, 426;  powers,  428-429;  procedure, 
429-430 

—  Federal  Court.    See  Bundesgericht 

—  Federalism,  triumph  of  in  1803,  407; 
in  1815,  408;  survival  in  present  con- 
stitutional system,  411;  as  a  political 
issue,  434 

—  Federal  Pact,  408 

—  Franchise,  426 

—  Gemeindeversammlung,  422 

—  Greater  Council,  of  the  canton,  418- 
419 

—  Helvetic    Republic,    creation    and 
character,  406-407 

—  Initiative,  employment  in  cantons, 
421;  in  the  federal  government,  432- 

434 

—  Judiciary.    See  Courts 

—  Landammann,  421-422 

—  Landesgemeinde,  417-418 

—  Law,  439 

—  Left.    See  Radical  Party 

—  Libesal  Party,  character,  435 

—  National  Council,  composition,  426; 
organization,  427;  powers,  428-429; 
procedure,  429-430 

—  Parties,    prolonged    ascendancy    of 
Radicals,    434;    alignments    to-day, 


668  INDEX 

Switzerland : — Continued  Switzerland : — Continued 

434-435  5  stability  of  groups,  435~436 ;  —  Sonderbund,  409 

inactivity,  436-437  —  Vienna,  Congress  of,  disposition  of 

—  President,    election   and    functions,  Swiss  affairs,  408 
422-424 

—  Proportional  Representation,  419, 433  Table  of  Magnates.    See  Hungary 

—  Radical    Party,   prolonged   ascend- 
ancy, 434;  present  character,  434-436  Woman's  Suffrage,  in  Great  Britain, 

—  Referendum,  origins,  419;  operation  91-92;  in  Holland,  527-528;  in  Nor- 
in  cantons,  410-420;  optional  form  in  way,  582;  in  Sweden,  596-597 
federal  government,  430-431;  obliga-  Wflrttemberg,  made  a  kingdom,  194; 
tory  form,  431-432  granted  a  constitution,  197;  special 

—  Right.    See  Clerical  Party  privileges,  208;  governmental  system, 

—  Socialist  Party,  rise,  434-436  278-279 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


HP  HE  following  pages   contain  advertisements   of 
books  by  the  same  author  or  on  kindred  subjects 


Social  Progress  in  Contemporary  Europe 

By  FREDERIC  AUSTIN  OGG,  PH.D.,  Associate  Professor 
of  History,  Simmons  College 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50;  postpaid  $1.63 

"The  term  'social'  has  been  interpreted  by  Professor  Ogg  to 
comprise  anything  which  bears  upon  the  status  and  opportunity 
of  the  average  man.  There  is  not  one  country  in  Europe  which  in 
the  past  four  or  five  generations  has  not  progressed  considerably 
along  this  line  and  Professor  Ogg's  purpose  has  been  to  explain 
the  origin  and  character  of  some  of  the  social  changes  which  have 
taken  place.  The  ground  which  he  covers  is  thes  century  and  a 
quarter  which  has  elapsed  since  the  uprising  of  1789  in  France. 
Professor  Ogg  has  done  a  very  great  and  much  needed  service  to 
the  public  in  thus  bringing  into  small  and  easily  getable  form  so 
much  information  about  the  antecedents  of  our  present  social 
conditions  and  tendencies.  All  of  it  is  of  the  sort  that  ought  to  be 
familiar  to  whoever  presumes  to  have  opinions  upon  economic 
questions,  and  particularly  to  all  who  would  direct  or  influence 
the  impressionable  public.  This  volume  should  be  in  the  hands 
of  all  who  would  like  to  build  for  their  opinions  some  foundation 
more  solid  than  prejudice  and  emotion." — New  York  Times. 

By  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

The  Opening  of  the  Mississippi 

A  struggle  for  supremacy  in  the  American  interior. 

Cloth,  8w,  $.200;  postpaid  $2.22 

"It  is  uniformly  commendable  throughout.  All  of  the  earlier 
histories  have  been  carefully  re-examined,  a  great  mass  of  original 
material  has  been  searched  and  the  results  of  his  studies  are 
presented  in  systematic  arrangement  and  in  a  clear  and  un- 
sophisticated style." — The  New  York  Evening  Post. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue          New  York 


By  CHARLES  A.  BEARD,  Professor  of  History  in  Columbia 
University,  author  of  "Introduction  to  the  English  His- 
torians" 

Readings  in  American  Government  and  Politics 

A  collection  of  interesting  material  illustrative  of  the  different 
periods  in  the  history  of  the  United  States,  prepared  for  those 
students  who  desire  to  study  source  writings. 

Cloth,  crown  8w.    Now  Ready,  $1.90 

"An  invaluable  guide  for  the  student  of  politics,  setting  forth  in 
an  illuminating  way  the  many  phases  of  our  political  life."  —  Critic. 

American  Government  and  Politics 

Cloth,  7/d  pages,  i2mo,  index,  $2.10 


A  work  designed  primarily  for  college  students,  but  of  considerable 
interest  to  the  general  reader.  A  special  feature  is  the  full  atten- 
tion paid  to  topics  that  have  been  forced  into  public  attention 
by  the  political  conditions  of  the  present  time. 


By  WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD   DUNNING,  Pn.D.,  Pro- 

fessor  of  History  in  Columbia  University 

A  History  of  Political  Theories 

2  Volumes 

I — ANCIENT  AND  MEDIEVAL 
II — FROM  LUTHER  TO  MONTESQUIEU 

Cloth,  8w,  each  $2.50 

The  successive  transformations  through  which  the  political  con- 
sciousness of  men  has  passed  from  early  antiquity  to  modern 
times  are  stated  in  a  clear,  intelligible  manner,  and  to  aid  in  a 
fuller  study  of  the  subject  references  are  appended  to  each  chapter 
covering  the  topics  treated  therein.  At  the  end  of  each  volume 
has  been  placed  an  alphabetical  list  containing  full  information 
as  to  all  the  works  referred  to,  together  with  many  additional 
titles. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue         New  York 


A  GREAT  WORK  INCREASED  IN  VALUE 

The  American  Commonwealth 

By  JAMES  BRYCE 

New  edition,  thoroughly  revised,  with  four  new  chapters 

Two  8w  volumes,  $4.00 

"  More  emphatically  than  ever  is  it  the  most  noteworthy  treatise 
on  our  political  and  social  system." — The  Dial. 

"The  most  sane  and  illuminating  book  that  has  been  written  on 
this  country." — Chicago  Tribune. 

"  What  makes  it  extremely  interesting  is  that  it  gives  the  matured 
views  of  Mr.  Bryce  after  a  closer  study  of  American  institutions 
for  nearly  the  life  of  a  generation." — San  Francisco  Chronicle. 

"The  work  is  practically  new  and  more  indispensable  than  ever." 
— Boston  Herald. 

"In  its  revised  form,  Mr.  Bryce's  noble  and  discerning  book 
deserves  to  hold  its  preeminent  place  for  at  least  twenty  years 
more." — Record-Herald,  Chicago,  111. 

"Mr.  Bryce  could  scarcely  have  conferred  on  the  American  people 
a  greater  benefit  than  he  has  done  in  preparing  the  revised  edition 
of  his  monumental  and  classic  work,  'The  American  Common- 
wealth.'"— Boston  Globe. 

"If  the  writer  of  this  review  was  to  be  compelled  to  reduce  his 
library  of  Americana  to  five  books,  James  Bryce's  'American 
Commonwealth'  would  be  one  of  them." — Evening  Telegram, 
Portland,  Ore. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue          New  York 


The  Government  of  England 

By  A.  LAWRENCE  LOWELL,  President  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity; Formerly  Professor  of  the  Science  of  Government; 
Author  of  "Colonial  Civil  Service/'  etc. 

In  two  volumes.  Bound  in  the  style  of  Bryce's  "American  Com- 
monwealth" 

New  edition,  cloth,  8vo,  $4.00 

The  New  York  Sun  calls  it:  — 

"The  remarkable  work  which  American  readers,  including  even 
those  who  suppose  themselves  to  be  pretty  well  informed,  will 
find  indispensable  .  .  .  ;  it  deserves  an  honored  place  in  every 
public  and  private  library  in  the  American  Republic." — M.  W.  H. 

"Professor  Lowell's  book  will  be  found  by  American  readers  to 
be  the  most  complete  and  informing  presentation  of  its  subject 
that  has  ever  fallen  in  their  way.  .  .  .  There  is  no  risk  in  saying 
that  it  is  the  most  important  and  valuable  study  in  government 
and  politics  which  has  been  issued  since  James  Bryce's  'American 
Commonwealth,'  and  perhaps  also  the  greatest  work  of  this 
character  produced  by  an  American  scholar." — Philadelphia 
Public  Ledger. 

"It  is  the  crowning  merit  of  the  book  that  it  is,  like  Mr.  Bryce's, 
emphatically  a  readable  work.  It  is  not  impossible  that  it  will 
come  to  be  recognized  as  the  greatest  work  in  this  field  that  has 
ever  been  produced  by  an  American  scholar." — Pittsburg  Post. 

"The  comprehensiveness  and  range  of  Mr.  Lowell's  work  is  one 
of  the  reasons  for  the  unique  place  of  his  'Government  of  Eng- 
land ' — for  its  place  is  in  a  class  by  itself,  with  no  other  books  either 
by  British  or  non-British  authors  to  which  it  can  be  compared. 
Another  reason  is  the  insight,  which  characterizes  it  throughout, 
into  the  spirit  in  which  Parliament  and  the  other  representative 
institutions  of  England  are  worked,  and  the  accuracy  which  so 
generally  characterizes  definite  statements;  all  contribute  to  make 
it  of  the  highest  permanent  value  to  students  of  political  science 
the  world  over." — EDWARD  PORRITT  in  The  Forum. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers          64-66  Fifth  Avenue  New  York 


The  Government  of  American  Cities 

By  WILLIAM  BENNETT  MUNRO,  PH.D.,  LL.B.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Municipal  Government  in  Harvard  University. 

Cloth,  8vo,  $2.25;  postage,  17  cents 

"It  is  doubtful  if  a  more  scholarly  and  unprejudiced  presenta- 
tion of  the  tendencies  of  the  times,  showing  the  faults  and  ad- 
vantage of  our  systems  of  municipal  management,  has  before 
appeared.  The  book  will  be  appreciated  everywhere." — The 
Boston  Globe. 

"...  a  fresh  contribution  to  a  weighty  and  important  public 
discussion." — Philadelphia  North  American. 

By  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

The  Government  of  European  Cities 

Cloth,  8w,  $2.00 ;  by  mail,  $2.19 

"The  most  effective  work  now  done  in  political  science  is  that 
going  on  in  the  field  of  applied  politics.  Avoiding  abstract  prin- 
ciples and  a  priori  speculation,  it  addresses  itself  to  examination 
of  the  actual  organization  of  public  authority  and  of  the  way  in 
which  governmental  function  is  carried  out.  In  'The  Govern- 
ment of  European  Cities'  (Macmillan),  Prof.  William  Bennett 
Munro  of  Harvard  has  made  a  valuable  addition  to  this  literature. 
He  gives  a  detailed  account  of  the  way  in  which  municipal  gov- 
ernment is  formed  and  carried  on  in  France,  Germany,  and  Eng- 
land. The  style  is  clear,  straightforward,  and  unpretentious,  and 
the  treatment  is  steadily  confined  to  the  subject  in  hand  without 
any  attempt  to  point  a  moral  or  aid  a  cause.  At  the  same  time 
references  to  American  municipal  methods  frequently  occur  as 
incidents  of  the  explanation  of  European  procedure,  and  these 
add  to  the  value  of  the  book  for  American  readers.  The  writing, 
while  succinct,  is  copious  in  detail,  and  only  administrative  ex- 
perts in  the  countries  respectively  considered  could  check  off  all 
the  statements  made;  but  the  work  itself  affords  intrinsic  evi- 
dence of  its  painstaking  accuracy.  One  cannot  read  the  book 
without  being  deeply  impressed  by  the  essential  simplicity  of  the 
principles  upon  which  European  municipal  government  is  con- 
stituted."— The  Nation. 


PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Publishers          64-66  Fifth  Avenue          New  York 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


/N  PORTAt 


7  1949 


3EC  1 


LD  21- 


NOV  14  1357 


REC'DLD     FEB1671-5PM7S 


1476 


YC  08540 


